/ 


r 


I  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  | 
Princeton,  N.  J.  '^  % 


BR  377  .H8 

Hopkins,  John  Henry,  1792 

1868. 
Sixteen  lectures  on  the 

causes,  principles,  and 


"> 


SIXTEEN  LECTURES 


CAUSES,  PRINCIPLES,  AND  RESULTS, 


BRITISH  KEFOSMATION. 


BY 

JOHN  HENRY  HOPKINS,  D.D. 

Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  Diocese  of  Vermont. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

JAMES    M.    CAMPBELL   &    CO, 

SAXTON  &  MILES,  NEW  YORK. 

1844. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844,  by 

James  M.  Campbell  &  Co. 

in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


John  C.  Clark,  Printer. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  lectures  were  written  in  A.  D.,  1840,  and 
were  delivered  in  the  parish  of  the  author,  St.  Paul's  Church, 
Burlington,  on  the  evenings  of  sixteen  successive  Sundays,  to 
the  apparent  satisfaction  of  a  large  and  somewhat  promiscuous 
congregation. 

Being  unexpectedly  obliged  to  visit  Philadelphia,  for  the 
purpose  of  correcting  the  press,  in  the  publication  of  his  re- 
cent letters  to  the  bishops,  clergy  and  laity  of  his  own  commu- 
nion, the  author  conceived  that  he  should  be  performing  an 
acceptable  service  to  the  cause  of  truth,  if  he  availed  himself 
of  the  opportunity  to  preach  these  lectures  in  that  city.  And 
although  he  foresaw  that  there  might  be  considerable  difficulty 
in  making  any  arrangement,  by  which  sixteen  discourses  on  tb*^ 
Reformation  could  be  brought  within  the  t.>^---  ^'"'^^^  required 
for  his  own  specific  business,  yet  he  resolved  at  least  to  make 
the  proposal  to  his  brethren,  the  rectors  of  the  city  Churches, 
and  let  them  decide  whether  such  an  effort  would  be  useful. 

The  result  was  a  very  interesting  expression  of  sound  views, 
and  fraternal  feelings,  on  the  part  of  the  clergy  at  large.  An 
arrangement  was  made,  by  which  five  of  the  principal  Churches 
should  be  occupied  in  rotation,  on  the  evenings  of  three  suc- 
cessive weeks,  so  as  to  complete  the  whole  course  within  the 
period  allotted  to  the  author's  stay.  The  following  Sunday 
night  was  fixed  for  the  introductory  lecture,  the  notices  were 


IV  PREFACE. 

prepared  by  a  prominent  clergyman  for  the  public  press,  and 
numerous  friendly  tongues  had  already  diffused  the  intelli- 
gence far  and  wide,  not  merely  exciting  a  certain  measure  of 
natural  anticipation,  but,  as  the  author  would  fain  believe, 
drawing  forth,  from  many  a  Christian  heart,  an  offering  of 
gratitude  to  God  for  another  testimony  against  error,  and  a 
prayer  in  behalf  of  the  humble  instrument  by  whom  it  should 
be  given. 

It  was  at  this  stage  of  the  matter,  that  the  bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  diocese  of  Pennsylvania, 
thought  fit  to  address  a  letter  to  the  author,  earnestly  and  ur- 
gently requesting  the  abandonment  of  the  whole  design. 

Of  this  very  singular  act,  there  is  no  desire,  on  the  author's 
part,  to  speak  unkindly.     He  has  indeed,  both  in  his  written 
answer  to.  the  bishop,  and  in  his  intercourse  with  others,  de- 
nied, as  he  still  denies,  the  right  and  the  expediency  of  the  in- 
terference.    But  he  yielded  to  it,  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren 
of  the  clergy,  whose  prompt  and  generous  conduct  on  the  oc- 
casion well  deserved,  that  he  should  make  any  sacrifice  of  his 
personal  feelings,  rather  than  be  the  means  of  raising  the 
^^^--^^c^nixoia.    between   them   and   their  diocesan. 
And  he  takes  this  opportunity  to  record  u«  conviction,  in  the 
most  explicit  terms,  that  while  he  considers  the  course  of  his 
respected  colleague  as  being  a  manifest  error  in  every  possible 
aspect  of  the  question,  yet  he  doubts  not  that  it  was  dictated 
by  the  purest  motives,  and  intended  for  the  best. 

The  immediate  effect,  however,  was  the  expression  of  a  ge- 
neral  and  strong  desire,  that  the  lectures,  intended  to  have  been 
preached,  should  at  least  be  published  without  delay.  With  this 
desire,  after  some  reflection,  the  author  thought  it  his  duty  to 
comply;  although  he  would  have  preferred,  so  far  as  he  was 


personally  concerned,  to  have  occupied  some  months  in  pre- 
paring an  improved  copy  for  the  press;  with  the  addition,  (ac- 
cording to  his  custom  in  his  other  humble  publications)  of  the 
original  notes,  referred  to  as  authority,  and  of  a  supplementary 
lecture  or  two  upon  the  subject  of  justification  by  faith,  as  con- 
tradistinguished from  the  Tridentine  doctrine. 

Such  being,  briefly,  the  simple  history  of  the  present  work, 
the  author  can  only  say,  that  he  has  done  what  he  could,  un- 
der the  circumstances,  to  render  his  references  satisfactory. 
For  many  of  the  passages,  especially  those  taken  from  the  an- 
cient fathers,  he  has  cited  his  former  book  on  the  Church  of 
Rome,  because  it  is  more  accessible  than  the  originals  them- 
selves, and  contains  copious  extracts  from  them,  made  with 
car^and  accuracy.  For  others,  he  has  referred  to  a  very  use- 
ful English  work.  Finch  on  the  Roman  controversy,  which 
ought  to  be,  if  it  is  not,  in  general  circulation.  And  he  has 
made  several  quotations  from  the  admirable  Letters  of  Dr. 
Philpots  to  Butler,  worthy,  in  every  respect,  of  the  reputation 
which  the  distinguished  writer  has  long  enjoyed,  as  bishop  of 
Exeter.     But  for  the  substantial  truth  and  correctness  of  the 

_^  ,    dUCt 

whole,  the  author  considers  himself  direct  »r  - 

^  ^^^^  ground  which  he  has  occupied 
stands  prepared  to  df'*^- '  -       &  ,         ,    i 

in  any  form  of  equal  controversy,  excepting  always  the  utterly 
inconclusive  and  objectionable  one  of  newspaper  discussion. 

On  the  propriety,  the  expediency,  the  right,  and-more  than 
all-(fe  soUmn  duly  of  defending  the  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation against  the  constant  assaults  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
the  author  feels  quite  persuaded  that  there  can  be,  amongst 
Protestant  Christians,  but  one  opinion.  The  legitimate  modes 
„f  performing  this  duty,  so  far  as  the  ministry  of  our  Church 
are  concerned,  are  three:  by  public  disputation,  by  the  pulpit. 


VI  PREFACE. 

and  by  the  press.  By  these,  the  truth  was  established. 
By  these,  the  same  truth  must  be  maintained.  And  woe  be  to 
the  Church,  if  the  fear  of  excitement,  or  the  apprehension  of 
consequences,  directly  or  indirectly,  should  ever  be  allowed  to 
silence  the  tongue  of  the  advocate,  who  seeks,  in  the  old  and 
regular  forms  of  ministerial  action,  with  sufficient  preparation 
and  in  a  Christian  spirit,  to  discharge  his  share  of  this  sacred 
responsibihty. 

Whether  the  author  has  erred  in  supposing  himself  called 
to  labour  in  this  trying  and  ungrateful  department  of  the  mi- 
nisterial office ;  whether  the  zealous  studies  of  eighteen  years 
have  failed  to  qualify  him  in  any  reasonable  measure  for  the 
task,  and  whether  he  was  altogether  mistaken  in  the  idea,  that 
the  following  course  of  lectures,  under  the  divine  blessing, 
might  have  borne  a  useful  testimony  on  behalf  of  our  Protes- 
tant truth  against  Roman  error,  especially  adapted  to  these 
times,  are  all  questions  which  he  willingly  submits  to  the  judg- 
ment of  his  brethren.  Should  that  judgment  be  against  him, 
he  will  pray  for  the  grace  of  resignation,  and  endeavour  to 
obey  the  Saviour's  precept:  Go,  and  sin  no  more. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


FIRST   LECTURE. 

^  Page 

The  Reformation — its  results— plan  of  the  course,     -         -  1 — 10 

SECOND  LECTURE. 

The  Rule  of  faith,  as  stated  by  the  Church  of  England,    -  11 — 25 

THIRD  LECTURE. 

The  Rule  of  faith,  as  maintained  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  26 — 40 

FOURTH  LECTURE. 

Roman  doctrine  of  tradition  and  infallibility,     -        -    ■     -  41 — 61 

FIFTH  LECTURE. 

Roman  doctrine  disproved  by  Scripture  and  the  fathers,    -  62 — 87 

SIXTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  papal  supremacy,           -        .         .  88 — 114 

SEVENTH  LECTURE. 

The  doctrine  of  papal  supremacy  disproved  by  the  fathers,  115 — 142 

EIGHTH  LECTURE. 

The  history  of  papal  supremacy, 143 — 167 

NINTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  anathema  and  persecution,    -         -  168^ — 195 

TENTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  celibacy,  and  sketch  of  monachism,  196 — 226 


Vm  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

ELEVENTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  concerning  the  worship  of  the  virgin 

and  the  saints, -     227—262 

TWELFTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  concerning   the  worship  of  relics, 

images,  &c. 263 — 238 

THIRTEENTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  purgatory,  satisfaction,  and  indul- 
gences,       -         - 290—313 

FOURTQEENTH  LECTURE. 

The  history  and  present  state  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory 

and  indulgences, 314 — 344 

FIFTEENTH  LECTURE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation — its  history,  &c.     345 — 361 

SIXTEENTH  LECTURE. 

The  same  refuted  from  the  fathers — recapitulation — con- 
clusion,        362—397 


LECTURE  I. 


JuDE  3. — Ye  should  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  which  was  once 
delivered  unto  the  saints. 


Three  hundred  years,  my  brethren,  have  nearly  rolled 
away,  since  the  glorious  Reformation  worked  so  vast  a  change 
in  the  character  of  Christendom.  Liberty  of  thought,  liberty 
of  speech,  liberty  of  action,  were  established,  where  despotism 
the  most  absolute  had  for  centuries  prevailed.  The  rights  of 
conscience,  after  a  long  and  fearful  struggle,  triumphed  over 
the  force  of  superstition.  The  marvellous  empire  of  the  Pa- 
pacy, which  had  attained  a  height  far  above  the  loftiest  earthly 
throne,  lost  its  dazzling  lustre,  and  the  iron  rod  of  its  dominion 
was  broken,  as  it  was  fondly  hoped,  to  bruise  no  more. 

I  shall  not  occupy  your  time  by  an  attempt  to  develop  the 
results  of  the  revolution,  which  this  great  event  accomplished 
in  the  civil  and  the  mental  history  of  man.  How  the  hard- 
won  jewel  of  religious  freedom  glanced  its  varied  light  upon 
every  other  subject,  and  gave  a  portion  of  its  own  hue  to  all 
the  processes  of  thought; — how  every  region  of  philosophy 
felt  the  inspiring  influence,  and  intellectual  life,  in  all  its 
freshness  and  its  energy,  burst  forth,  rejoicing,  from  the  tram- 
mels which  had  fettered  it  so  long; — how  civil  despotism,  and 
every  form  of  prescriptive  injustice,  were  compelled  to  listen 
to  the  voice  of  bold  remonstrance,  until,  one  after  another,  the 
hoary  abuses  of  time-honoured  tyranny  were  abandoned,  and 
government  was  acknowledged  to  be,  not  a  prerogative  insti- 

B 


a  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

tuted  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  few,  but  a  solemn  trust 
held  for  the  benefit  of  the  many ; — how  these  and  similar  ad- 
vantages in  the  whole  complicated  frame-work  of  society  were 
the  consequences,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  the  Reformation, 
has  been  often  proved  by  far  more  eloquent  tongues  than 
mine ;  and  it  is  no  part  of  my  present  purpose  to  repeat  the 
demonstration.  Rather  let  me  confine  myself  to  the  track 
which  belongs  to  my  office,  and  inquire  what  has  been  the 
result  upon  those  interests  which  so  far  transcend  the  high- 
est aims  of  earthly  sagacity — the  interests  of  the  Church  of 
God. 

And  here,  my  brethren,  a  field  opens  upon  us,  vast  in  ex- 
tent, and  pre-eminently  worthy  of  examination.  To  traverse 
it,  however,  in  the  hope  of  making  a  perfect  and  complete  sur- 
vey, would  need  a  knowledge  of  the  past  and  present  state  of 
Christendom  which  no  one  man  possesses.  All  that  I  can  pre- 
tend to  perform  must  be  a  far  more  humble  undertaking.  The 
corruptions,  doctrinal  and  practical,  which  were  the  exciting 
causes  of  the  Reformation,  the  principles  on  which  it  was  con- 
ducted, especially  in  our  mother  Church  of  England,  and  the 
effects  produced  upon  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  upon  those 
leading  Protestant  communions  with  which  we  are  best  ac- 
quainted, will  form  a  circle  of  topics  quite  large  enough  for 
our  contemplated  course;  and  of  these,  the  first  only  will  de- 
mand an  elaborate  consideration. 

But  I  beg  leave  to  premise — and  I  trust  the  unavoidable 
egotism  of  the  statement  may  be  pardoned — that  although 
these  lectures  will,  of  necessity,  bear  somewhat  of  a  contro- 
versial aspect,  yet  are  they  commenced  in  no  spirit  of  unkind- 
ness  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  or  to  any  other  Church  of  Chris- 
tendom. I  do  indeed  profess  myself  a  firm  believer  in  the  one 
Catholic  or  Universal  Church  of  the  Redeemer,  which  forms  a 
distinct  article  of  the  primitive  creed ;  but  I  have  long  che- 
rished the  opinion  that  all  orthodox  believers  are  members  of 


OBJECT    OF    CONTROVEKSY.  3 

that  Church,  whatever  may  be  the  diversities  of  their  particu- 
lar communion.  The  cardinal  truths  which  form  that  simple 
creed,  and  in  which  all  Christians  concur,  seem  to  my  mind 
greatly  to  outweigh  the  minor  points  on  which  they  differ; 
and,  therefore,  while  I  desire  to  hold  the  truth  on  every  sub- 
ject, and  regard  every  distinction  which  tends  to  divide  the 
followers  of  Christ  as  a  sore  evil,  yet  would  I  endeavour,  at 
all  times,  to  remember  the  far  weightier  matters  in  which  they 
agree,  and  thus  realize  a  measure  of  Christian  charity,  even 
when  compelled  to  utter  the  language  of  reprehension. 

It  is,  I  am  aware,  supposed  by  many,  that  such  an  acknow- 
ledgment renders  controversy  unnecessary,  because  if  men 
may  be  saved  whether  they  are  in  all  respects  right  or  wrong, 
the  attempt  to  set  them  right  in  non-essential  matters  is  hardly 
worth  the  trouble.  But  no  one  argues  thus  on  any  thing  else 
except  religion.  All  men,  for  example,  belong  to  the  same 
human  family,  and  agree  in  the  great  essentials  of  their  na- 
ture ;  and  yet,  since  none  can  be  perfect,  either  in  body,  or  in 
mind,  or  in  circumstances,  the  whole  labour  of  life  is  directed 
to  improve  them.  For  who  would  say  that  the  healthy  man 
has  no  superiority  over  the  diseased?  that  the  man  with  all 
his  bodily  members  possesses  no  advantage  over  him  who  is 
maimed  or  mutilated?  or  that  the  man  of  education  and  re- 
finement has  no  better  lot  than  the  ignorant  and  debased? 
Nay,  to  what  is  the  entire  range  of  human  science  and  indus- 
try directed,  if  it  be  not  to  elevate  the  social  and  individual 
condition  of  those  who  are  yet  admitted  to  be  the  children  of 
the  same  common  father?  Indeed,  so  far  is  it  from  being 
true,  that  because  my  neighbour  is  a  man  as  well  as  1,  there- 
fore it  is  not  worth  my  while  to  rectify  his  mistakes  and  en- 
large his  knowledge,  that  the  direct  contrary  would  be  my 
proper  rule  of  duty.  It  is  precisely  because  he  is  my  fellow, 
that  I  am  bound  to  lead  him  out  of  error,  and  do  him  all  the 
good  I  can.     Now,  surely,  on  the  same  principle,  my  ac- 


4  OBJECT    OF    CONTROVERSY. 

knowledging  all  Christians  as  members  of  the  same  spiritual 
household,  which  is  the  Catholic  or  Universal  Church,  does 
by  no  means  require  that  I  should  justify  the  errors  of  their 
system,  but  the  contrary ;  since  the  more  disposed  I  feel  to  re- 
gard them  as  belonging  to  the  great  family  of  Christ,  the  more 
anxious  I  must  be  to  behold  them  united  in  sentiment.  Be- 
sides which,  all  error  is  dangerous,  even  though  it  be  not 
fatal.  Truth  alone  is  safe.  Most  absurd,  then,  would  it 
seem,  to  contend  for  the  better  health  of  the  body,  and  yet  be 
silent  as  to  the  diseases  of  the  soul.  Most  preposterous  to  be 
sensitive  to  all  the  disorders  of  the  civil  government,  and  yet 
be  indifferent  to  the  errors  of  any  portion  of  the  Church  of 
God;  for  these  errors,  and  the  strifes  growing  out  of  them, 
form  a  constant  theme  of  reproach  against  religion,  and  not 
only  hinder  the  peace  of  Christians  themselves,  but  are  a 
standing  obstacle  to  the  diffusion  of  the  gospel. 

We  are  far,  however,  from  admitting,  that  the  divisions  of 
Christians  ought  to  liave  an  effect  so  injurious  to  the  progress 
of  Christianity.  However  hostile  they  must  needs  be  to  the 
full  joy  and  comfort  of  spiritual  life,  we  cannot  see  any  force 
in  the  infidel  assumption,  that  if  the  Bible  were  divine,  there 
could  be  but  one  mind  amongst  all  that  receive  it.  For  it  is 
obvious,  that  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  which  con- 
verts the  very  gospel  of  peace  into  an  instrument  of  discord,  is 
equally  active  in  perverting  and  abusing  every  other  gift  of 
God.  Is  not  the  blessed  sun  in  the  heavens  the  work  of  an 
Almighty  hand,  and  yet  does  not  man  compel  it,  as  it  were, 
to  look  on  deeds  of  darkness?  Is  not  human  reason  a  gift  of 
God,  and  are  not  men  continually  degrading  it  in  the  defence 
of  folly?  Are  not  our  bodies  the  workmanship  of  God,  and 
are  they  not,  nevertheless,  given  over,  too  oflen,  to  the  service 
of  iniquity?  What  gift  of  divine  goodness  docs  not  man  per- 
vert and  abuse  as  well  as  religion  ?  On  what  science  or  art 
are  men  universally  agreed  any  more  than  on  religion?    Most 


MOTIVES    TO    CONTROVERSY.  5 

confidently  may  it  be  answered,  None,  if  the  numbers  engaged 
in  them,  and  the  subject  matter,  be  taken  respectively  into 
consideration.  It  is,  therefore,  after  all,  no  more  than  what 
ought  to  be  expected,  that  religion,  though  indeed  divine  and 
perfect  in  its  unity,  so  far  as  God,  its  glorious  author,  is  con- 
cerned, should  be  subject  to  the  universal  calamity  of  human 
nature,  partial  misapprehension,  division  and  strife,  on  the 
side  of  man. 

And  may  we  not  further  remark,  in  the  analogy  before  us, 
that  the  goodness  of  God  does  not  immediately  withdraw  his 
gifls  even  when  men  abuse  them.  The  sun  does  not  refuse 
to  shine  upon  those  who  pervert  the  blessing.  The  faculty  of 
reason  is  not  overthrown  as  soon  as  it  is  prostituted  to  the  de- 
fence of  evil.  The  springs  of  life  and  health  are  not  forthwith 
dried  up,  because  the  libertine  and  the  profligate  pollute  them 
by  iniquity.  And  just  so  is  it  in  religion,  that  the  mercy  of 
God  continues  to  vouchsafe  the  revelation  of  his  truth  and  the 
influences  of  his  Spirit  to  the  children  of  men,  notwithstanding 
their  sad  propensity,  in  every  age,  to  adulterate  the  pure  gold 
of  divine  authority  with  the  miserable  dross  of  human  inven- 
tion. Wretched,  indeed,  would  be  our  lot,  if  the  rule  of  hea- 
venly compassion  were  less  indulgent  than  it  is;  for  if  the 
Lord  were  strict  to  mark  every  transgression,  if  every  devia- 
tion from  his  truth  worked  a  forfeiture  of  the  whole,  what 
Church  or  what  man  could  stand  before  Him? 

But — to  return  from  what  may  seem  to  be  a  digression — there 
are  in  my  mind  some  especial  reasons,  why  I  should  select  the 
causes,  principles  and  results  of  the  Reformation,  as  the  pecu- 
liar subject  of  our  Christian  interest  at  the  present  time. 
First,  because  the  aspect  of  the  religious  world,  at  this  mo- 
ment, presents  the  very  same  elements  of  controversy,  only 
under  varied  forms  of  practical  application,  which  agitated  all 
Europe  three  hundred  years  ago.  The  Church  of  Rome  then 
insisted  that  her  system  was  the  only  exponent  of  the  faith 

b2 


6  MOTIVES  TO  CONTROVERSY. 

once  delivered  to  the  saints  by  the  inspired  apostles  of  Christ. 
The  Reformers,  on  the  other  hand,  denied  the  truth  of  this  as- 
sumption, and  averred  that  the  primitive  system  had  become 
changed,  deformed  and  corrupted  in  her  keeping.  The  Church 
of  Rome  claimed  the  exclusive  title  of  Catholic,  and  branded 
all  without  her  pale  as  cut  off  from  Christ  as  heretics,  guilty 
of  mortal  sin.  The  Reformers  denied  that  she  had  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  the  name  of  Catholic,  or  Universal,  maintained 
that  the  term  Catholic  grew  into  use  amongst  the  primitive 
Christians  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  that  they 
themselves  were  in  far  truer  agreement  with  Christianity,  as 
it  was  then  understood  by  the  Church  of  Rome  herself,  than 
the  modern  Church  of  Rome  under  the  Papal  system.  Now 
these  contrarieties  are  still  asserted  as  strongly  as  ever,  and 
therefore  the  necessity  for  defending  the  ground  taken  by  our 
forefathers,  is  in  no  respect  done  away. 

Secondly,  however,  the  peculiar  position  of  our  own  Church 
seems  to  call  for  a  much  more  general  and  complete  discus- 
sion of  this  controversy  on  our  part,  in  justice  to  others  as 
well  as  to  ourselves.  For  in  the  wilderness  of  jarring  opi- 
nions throughout  the  Christian  world,  we  regard  our  Church 
as  placed  between  extremes,  far  removed  from  the  Church  of 
Rome  on  the  one  part,  not  a  little  from  many  of  the  various 
modern  Churches  on  the  other,  and  therefore  liable,  of  course, 
to  be  misunderstood  and  misrepresented  by  all.  But  if  this 
be,  in  some  respects,  a  disadvantageous  position,  in  other  re- 
spects we  should  regard  it  as  a  privilege  which  involves  a  spe- 
cial responsibility,  because  the  voice  of  truth,  coming  from  the 
centre,  is  more  likely  to  be  heard  on  either  side;  and  thus, 
under  God,  we  might  hope  that  it  would  produce  a  better  and 
a  holier  influence. 

And  thirdly,  I  must  acknowledge — though  with  much  re- 
gret— that  the  difficulty  of  finding  a  thorough,  and  yet  tempe- 
rate and  friendly  discussion  of  this  deeply  important  subject. 


MOTIVES    TO    CONTROVERSY.  7 

has  been  my  strongest  motive  to  the  work  of  controversy. 
The  Roman  priesthood,  ever  since  the  days  of  Bossuet,  have 
pursued  a  course  in  all  Protestant  countries,  which  makes  it 
by  no  means  easy,  even  for  a  cuUivated  intellect,  to  understand 
their  real  principles.  Adopting  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
Being  crafty,  I  caught  you  with  guile,  they  have  applied 
them  to  a  totally  different  purpose,  by  presenting  their  doc- 
trines and  their  history  under  a  modern  and  specious  garb,  far 
more  inviting  and  plausible  than  truth  would  sanction ;  and 
thus  they  have  prevailed  on  many  an  ardent  and  noble  mind, 
to  think  them  a  sadly  misrepresented  and  persecuted  people. 
With  such  admirable  agreement  and  adroitness  have  they  pur- 
sued this  plan,  that  even  our  own  peace  has  been  somewhat 
disturbed  by  it.  Even  some  churchmen  of  unquestionable 
learning  and  talent,  as  well  in  England  as  amongst  ourselves, 
yielding  to  a  generous  though  misguided  feeling,  have  devoted 
themselves  to  the  defence  of  Rome,  as  of  an  injured  party, 
and  openly  maintained  that  there  was  far  less  need  of  the 
Reformation,  and  far  less  benefit  derived  from  its  success,  than 
was  commonly  supposed;  that  strictly  considered,  there  was  but 
little  substantial  difference  between  the  Roman  and  the  Angli- 
can systems,  and  that  re-union  with  Rome,  even  as  she  now  is, 
was  not  impossible.  The  startling  demonstrations  of  this 
strange  hypothesis  during  the  last  few  years,  in  our  mother 
Church  especially,  have  excited  a  fresh  interest  in  the  real 
merits  of  the  controversy ;  and  have  made  it  necessary  for  all 
men  who  would  not  be  deficient  in  Christian  intelligence,  to 
ascertain,  with  candour  and  with  fairness,  the  precise  limits  of 
truth.  To  minister  to  this  necessity,  with  honesty  and  frank- 
ness, but  without  prejudice  or  asperity,  and  thus  supply  an  ac- 
knowledged defect  of  satisfactory  information,  is  a  main  object 
of  the"  following  course.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  in  these  lectures, 
you  will  find  truth  and  kindliness  linked  faithfully  together. 
The  spiritual  interests  of  the  Christian  are  never  advancing, 


8  PLAN    PROPOSED. 

when  the  intellect  triumphs  at  the  expense  of  the  heart;  for, 
as  sailh   the  apostle,  knowledge  pt/ffeth  vp,  but  charity 

EDIFIETH. 

The  plan  of  our  course  may  next  demand  a  brief  explana- 
tion. It  will  be  the  same  in  substance,  as  that  which  has  been 
pursued  by  the  learned  Dr.  Wiseman,  whose  lectures  in  defence 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  the  most  recent,  and  perhaps  I  may 
add,  the  most  plausible  of  the  present  day.  The  writer,  for 
some  years,  filled  the  honourable  post  of  Rector  of  the  English 
College  at  Rome,  where  he  attained  a  distinguished  rank 
amongst  the  accomplished  scholars  of  Europe.  His  lectures 
were  delivered  in  London,  first  in  1835,  and  again  in  1836. 
They  were  published  soon  afterwards  in  England,  and  repub- 
lished in  the  United  States;  and  their  importance  has  been  en- 
hanced  by  the  appointment  of  their  author  to  be  one  of  the 
papal  Vicars  Apostolic,  with  the  title  of  Bishop,  in  partihns 
injidelium. 

I  do  not  design,  however,  to  content  myself  with  merely 
taking  the  statement  of  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  from  this 
writer,  nor  from  any  of  the  controversialists  of  the  present 
age ;  because  it  is  a  part  of  my  design  to  show  the  change 
which  the  Reformation  has  wrought  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
herself:  and  therefore  I  shall  set  before  you  the  acts  of  their 
councils,  the  dogmata  of  their  schoolmen,  the  declarations  and 
bulls  of  the  Popes,  their  canon  laws,  their  authorized  forms  of 
worship,  their  catechisms,  their  breviary,  the  statements  of 
their  historians,  and  of  their  distinguished  bishops;  pursuing 
in  every  instance,  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  courts  of  justice 
in  all  civilized  nations,  viz:  that  the  best  evidence  of  which 
the  nature  of  the  case  admits,  shall  be  given.  On  our  side  we 
shall  adduce,  first,  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  next 
the  testimony  of  the  earlier  fathers  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  herself  handed  down  to  us,  whose  names  are  placed  upon 
her  list  of  saints,  and  inscribed  with  honour  in  her  canon  law. 


SPIRIT  OF  CONTROVERSY. 


9 


And  I  trust,  my  brethren,  that  the  result  of  the  whole  will  be 
not  only  a  reasonable  measure  of  important  religious  know- 
ledge, but  an  increase  of  your  gratitude  to  God  for  the  privi- 
leges which  yonr  own  branch  of  the  Universal  or  Catholic 
Church  secures  to  you,  and  a  correspondent  increase  of  your 
zeal  for  "the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  Yet  along 
with  these,  I  would  fain  hope  that  one  of  the  fruits  of  our  labour 
may  be  an  increase  of  charity  towards  those  who  differ  from 
us;  that  charity  which  willingly  thinketh  no  evil,  and  rejoiceth 
only  in  the  truth.  If  I  had  not  this  hope,  I  should  lose  all 
relish  for  the  work  I  have  undertaken.  Controversy,  God 
knows,  has  had  too  much  to  do  with  the  carnal  weapons  of 
acrimony,  and  sarcasm,  and  slander,  and  a  studied  effort  to 
put  every  thing  connected  with  the  adversary  in  the  most  odious 
light.  Be  ours  the  endeavour,  made  at  least  in  humble  sin- 
cerity, to  use  only  the  spiritual  weapons  of  candour,  sobriety 
and  moderation.  Thus  only  can  our  task  be  approved  by 
the  Prince  of  peace.  Thus  only  can  we  ask  that  the  God 
of  truth  and  love  will  grant  it  his  blessing. 

In  concluding  this  introductory  discourse,  my  beloved  bre- 
thren, I  have  two  requests  to  make,  which  I  trust  you  will  not 
deny  me.  The  one  is,  that  you  will  not  expect  the  discussion 
to  be  enlivened  by  any  of  those  tales  of  pious  frauds,  of  inqui- 
sitorial cruelty,  of  monastic  atrocity,  and  conventual  abomina- 
tion, which  multitudes  have  been  in  the  habit  of  connecting 
with  all  their  ideas  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  which  fair  and 
candid  minds  dismiss  at  once,  as  having  no  proper  place  in 
well  regulated  controversy.  I  do  not  mean  to  question  the 
truth  of  the  facts  which  historians  relate  in  connexion  with 
these  subjects.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  held  the  most  pro- 
minent place  in  the  Christian  world  ever  since  the  days  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  and  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if  many  abuses 
could  not  be  found  in  her  history,  especially  as  several  centuries 
of  that  history  were  passed  among  the  dark  ages  of  feudal 


10  DEPENDENCE    ON    PRAYER. 

tyranny  and  ignorance.  But  principles  and  doctrines  arc  the 
most  proper  topics  of  religious  discussion.  Practices  which 
did  not  necessarily  flow  from  principles,  and  errors  which 
are  lamented  as  grievous  abuses  by  Roman  Catholics  them- 
selves, and  which  are  confined  to  particular  persons  or  grew 
out  of  particular  circumstances,  may  indeed  furnish  very  inte- 
resting materials  for  the  poet,  the  novelist,  or  the  historian, 
but  deserve  no  serious  notice  in  our  contemplated  undertaking. 
My  other  request  is  founded  upon  a  high  authority,  the 
example  of  the  great  apostle,  when  he  said  to  his  Thessalo- 
nian  converts,  brethren,  pray  for  us.  (1  Thes.  v.  25.) 
Who  giveth  wisdom,  knowledge,  sound  discretion,  patient 
research,  and  that  peculiar  power  which  penetrates  the  veil  of 
ingenious  sophistry,  and  discovers  the  hidden  truth,  but  God 
alone?  Grant  me  then,  my  beloved  brethren,  what  none  can 
need  more  than  I  do,  the  aidof  your  prayers;  that  the  humble 
enterprise  commenced  in  the  service  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
may  have  the  guidance  of  his  grace,  and  be  made  an  instru- 
ment, in  some  small  degree,  for  the  promotion  of  his  glory. 


LECTURE  II. 


1  Tim.  iii.  15. — The  Church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth. 


In  entering,  my  beloved  brethren,  upon  the  course  of  lec- 
tures to  which  I  pledged  myself,  under  favour  of  Divine  Pro- 
vidence, in  my  last  discourse,  the  first  subject  which  demands 
our  attention  is  the  fundamental  question  of  the  kule  or 
faith;  or,  in  other  words,  hy  what  authority  our  faith  must 
he  governed;  whether  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  by  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Church.  This  forms  the  leading  topic  of  the  Ro- 
man controversy  in  our  own  day,  as  it  did  at  the  period  of  the 
Reformation. 

Perhaps  no  question  has  ever  given  rise  to  more  argument 
than  this,  or  has  been  liable  to  more  ingenious  sophistry  and 
mystification,  on  account  of  the  various  senses  in  which  its 
terms  have  been  understood,  and  the  skill  with  which  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  Church  of  Rome  have  mingled  truth  and  error. 
In  order,  therefore,  that  we  may  form  a  clear  conception  of 
the  whole  argument,  it  will  be  necessary,  as  a  preliminary,  to 
fix  in  our  minds  a  distinct  idea  of  what  we  mean  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  Church. 

By  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  the  Bible,  we  understand  a  col- 
lection of  sacred  books,  put  forth  from  the  days  of  Moses  until 
the  latter  j^ears  of  the  apostle  John,  at  the  suggestion  or  com- 
mand of  God  himself,  by  various  holy  men,  whom  the  Spirit 
of  God   guided  and   superintended   in   such  wise,   that   the 


12  SCRIPTURE    AND    THE    CHURCH. 

writings  thus  produced  were  perfectly  free  from  all  error,  and 
therefore  were  justly  entitled  to  be'  received,  not  as  the  work 
of  man,  but  as  the  recorded  word  of  God.  In  this  state- 
ment there  is  an  universal  agreement  amongst  all  Christians ; 
and  the  only  point  of  serious  difference  between  the  Church  of 
Rome  and  ourselves,  is  confined  to  the  question,  whether  cer- 
tain books,  which  we  esteem  of  doubtful  inspiration,  should 
have  been  included  with  the  rest  in  the  sacred  Canon,  by  the 
Council  of  Trent  which  sat  in  the  sixteenth  century,  against 
the  authority  of  the  ancient  fathers  and  councils  of  a  much 
earlier  day. 

The  other  term,  Church,  is  not  susceptible  of  being  de- 
fined with  equal  simplicity.  The  word  itself,  in  the  original 
languages  in  which  the  Bible  is  written,  signifies  the  assembly, 
or  the  congregation;  and  it  is  applied  to  the  sam.e  subjects  in 
various  relations,  two  only  of  which,  however,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary to  set  forth  on  the  present  occasion. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  Church  Catholic,  or  Universal, 
being  the  whole  body  of  the  professed  people  of  God,  from 
righteous  Abel  down  to  the  last  believer,  who  shall  be  alive 
when  the  trumpet  of  the  Archangel  summons  the  entire  family 
of  man  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  Of  this  Church 
we  read,  under  many  dispensations;  the  patriarchal,  the  Mo- 
saic, and  the  New  Testament,  or  Christian  dispensation  as  it 
is  commonly  called,  although,  in  fact,  these  three  are  only  the 
stages  of  its  development;  the  successive  unfoldings  of  the 
truth,  manifested  in  the  beautiful  order  established  by  the  di- 
vine wisdom,  while  the  substance  of  that  truth  was  still  the 
same.  To  satisfy  the  reflecting  mind  of  this  substantial  unity, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  remember,  that  the  promise  of  Christ, 
and  the  institution  of  sacrifice  as  a  type  of  the  Lamb  of  God 
which  should  take  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  were  given  im- 
mediately after  the  fall.  Hence  the  Redeemer  is  called,  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.    Abel,  the  son 


THE    TERM    CHURCH.  13 

of  Adam,  is  adduced  by  St.  Paul  as  an  example  of  faith. 
Enoch  was  translated  in  proof  of  a  higher  and  immortal  state, 
and  prophesied,  according  to  St.  Jude,  of  the  future  judgment. 
Noah  was  a  preacher  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  the 
ark  that  saved  him  from  the  waters  of  the  deluge  was  a  sym- 
bol of  the  Church  of  God ;  while  Melchisedec  was  an  emi- 
nent and  peculiar  type  of  the  eternity,  sovereignty,  and  priest- 
hood of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Abraham  was  called  the  friend  of 
God  and  the  father  of  the  faithful.  Throughout  the  subse- 
quent, or  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  all  was  arranged  with  re- 
ference to  Christ.  Israel  was  the  Church,  and  the  prophets 
foretold,  with  increasing  clearness,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles 
at  the  coming  of  Him  who  was  to  be  the  Light  of  the  Gentiles 
and  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel.  And,  therefore,  in  strict 
accordance  with  this  unity,  St.  Paul  tells  the  Romans  that 
they  were  grafted  on  the  stock  of  Abraham,  that  Israel  was 
the  root,  that  the  Gentibs  were  grafted  upon  that  root  instead 
of  the  natural  branches,  and  that  the  time  should  come  when 
those  natural  branches,  which  had  been  cut  off  by  reason  of 
unbelief,  should  be  grafted  in  again,  and  all  be  one  in  the  Re- 
deemer. Hence  the  phrase  Catholic  Chvrch,  or  Universal 
Church,  taken  in  its  widest  latitude  as  comprehending  the 
body  of  Christ,  includes,  properly,  all  who  embraced  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  under  each  successive  dispensation,  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world :  and  although,  for  ordinary  purposes 
and  in  common  parlance,  it  is  usual  to  apply  this  phrase  to 
the  whole  Church  under  the  present  dispensation  only,  since 
the  former  dispensations,  having  fulfilled  their  part,  are  done 
away,  yet  there  are  many  passages  of  the  Book  of  God,  and 
many  doctrines  and  usages  of  the  Church,  which  cannot  be 
properly  understood,  without  a  clear  idea  of  its  real  and  com- 
prehensive signification. 

The  second  application  of  the  word  Church,  is  to  a  part 
of  the  universal  body,  whether  that  part  be  greater  or  less* 

c 


14  THE    TERM    CIimCH. 

A  iJdw  examples  of  both  these  significations  will  explain  the 
distinction  clearly. 

Thus,  for  instance,  our  Saviour  saith,  (Matt,  xviii.  15 — 17) 
"If  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his 
fault  between  thee  and  him  alone :  if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou 
hast  gained  thy  brother.  But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then 
take  with  thee  one  or  two  more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or 
three  witnesses  every  word  may  be  established.  And  if  he 
shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  Church,-  but  if  he 
neglect  to  hear  the  Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen 
man  and  a  publican."  Here  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  does 
not  mean,  that  the  Universal  or  Catholic  Church  was  to  be  told 
of  every  offence  which  an  individual  might  commit  against  his 
brother,  for  this  would  be  equally  absurd  and  impossible.  But 
the  word  Church  means  the  assembly  or  congregation  to 
which  the  parties  belonged ;  that  is,  a  very  small,  but  yet  dis- 
tinctly organized  fraction  of  the  whole. 

On  another  occasion,  however,  our  Lord  saith,  (Matt.  xvi. 
18)  "On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  Now  here  we  are  bound  to 
give  to  the  word  that  wide  scope  of  meaning,  which  compre- 
hends the  final  victory  of  the  Universal  or  Catholic  Church 
over  the  powers  of  darkness. 

Again,  when  St.  Stephen,  (Acts  vii.  38)  in  his  last  disputa- 
tion with  the  Jews,  just  before  his  martyrdom,  saith  ;  "This  is 
that  Moses  that  was  in  the  Church  in  the  wilderness  with  the 
angel  which  spake  to  him  in  Mount  Sinai  and  with  our  fa- 
thers," it  is  manifest  that  he  applies  the  word  Church  to  an- 
cient Israel,  the  Church  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  But 
when  St.  Paul  saith,  (Eph.  v.  25)  that  "Christ  loved  the 
Church,  and  gave  himself  for  it,"  and  again,  (Col.  i.  18)  that 
"He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church,"  and  again,  in  the 
words  of  our  text,  when  he  speaks  to  Timothy  of  "  the  Church 
of  the  living  God,  which  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth," 


THE    TERM    CHURCH.  15 

we  are  to  understand  the  whole  Church,  the  Church  Catholic 
or  Universal. 

From  this  necessary  latitude  in  the  meaning  of  the  word 
Church,  we  should  expect  to  find  it  often  mentioned  merely  in 
respect  to  its  locality.  Thus  we  read,  in  the  first  epistle  of 
St.  Peter,  (v.  13)  of  the  Church  at  Babylon.  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  the  Church  of  Laodicea,  (Col.  iv.  16)  the  Church  at  Cen- 
chrea,  (Rom.  xvi.  1)  the  Church  of  God  at  Corinth.  (1  Cor.  i. 
2.)  Nay,  he  diminishes  the  term  so  far  as  to  address  himself 
to  the  Church  in  the  house  of  Philemon.  (Phii.  2.)  In  like 
manner,  we  find  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Book  of  Revelations, 
addressing  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  of  Smyrna,  of  Pergamus, 
of  Thyatira,  of  Sardis,  of  Philadelphia,  of  Laodicea.  And  it  is, 
accordingly,  the  current  style  of  the  apostles  to  speak  of 
Churches  in  the  plural  number.  "The  Churches  of  Christ 
salute  you,"  saith  St.  Paul.  (Rom.  xvi.  16.)  "So  ordain  J," 
saith  he  elsewhere,  (1  Cor.  vii.  17)  "in  all  the  Churches." 
He  speaks  of  the  Churches  of  Asia,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  19)  the 
Churches  of  Galatia,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1)  the  Churches  of  Macedo- 
nia, (2  Cor.  viii.  1)  the  Churches  of  Judea.  (Gal.  i.  22.)  And 
in  the  same  strain  we  read,  (Rev.  ii.  7)  "ife  that  hath  an  ear, 
let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  Churches,''''  It 
may  perhaps  seem  to  you,  my  brethren,  that  I  am  taking 
needless  trouble  to  prove  a  very  simple  proposition.  But  you 
will  find,  before  the  conclusion  of  these  discourses,  that  the 
sense  in  which  this  word  is  to  be  understood,  has  a  very  im- 
portant bearing,  not  only  on  the  doctrine  of  our  rule  of  faith, 
but  on  many  other  points  involved  in  the  Roman  contro- 
versy. 

Having  thus  shown  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed  in 
the  statement  of  our  rule  of  faith,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  the 
rule  itself,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  in  those  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  la 
the  United  States. 


16  THE    ARTICLES. 

The  sixth  Article  has  for  its  title,  "  The  svfficiency  of  tlie 
Holy  Scriptures  for  sahation,^^  and  is  in  the  following 
words  :— 

"  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, so  that  whatever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  that  it  should  be  be- 
lieved as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or 
necessary  to  salvation.  In  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture 
we  do  understand  those  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the 
Church." 

Here,  you  peixjeive,  is  a  direct  reference  to  the  Church,  and 
that  in  a  comprehensive  sense,  including  the  whole  Church 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  But  there  are  other  Articles 
which  expressly  treat  of  the  Church  and  its  authority;  and 
these  it  will  be  necessary  to  cite,  in  order  that  the  whole 
standard  of  our  faith  may  be  placed  before  you. 

The  19th  Article  defines  the  Church  in  the  following  words: 
"  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men, 
in  the  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacra- 
ments be  duly  ministered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in 
all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same." 

In  this  definition  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Universal  or 
Catholic  Church  was  in  view  at  all,  but  rather  that  which 
should  constitute  a  Church  in  any  particular  part  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  as  for  example,  the  Church  of  a  single  city,  or  pro- 
vince, or  nation. 

The  20th  Article  sets  forth  the  authority  of  the  Church  in 
these  words  : 

"  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  or  ceremonies,  and 
authority  in  controversies  of  faith,  and  yet  it  is  not  lawful  for 
the  Church  to  ordain  any  thing  that  is  contrary  to  God's  Word 
written,  neither  may  it  so  expound  one  place  of  Scripture  that 
it  be  repugnant  to  another.     Wherefore,  although  the  Church 


THE    ARTICLES.  17 

be  a  witness  and  a  keeper  of  Holy  Writ,  yet  as  it  ought  not 
to  decree  any  thing  against  the  same,  so,  besides  the  same, 
ought  it  not  to  enforce  any  thing  to  be  beUeved  for  necessity 
of  salvation." 

U  we  suppose  that  a  provincial  or  national  Church  were 
intended  in  the  10th  Article,  then  nothing  hinders  us  from  ap- 
plying  the  same  sense  to  the  word  Church  in  the  20th ;  al- 
though it  would  as  well  justify  the  more  comprehensive  signiti- 
cation  of  the  Church  Universal.  There  are  yet  two  other 
Articles,  however,  which  bear  upon  the  point  in  question. 

The  21st,  treating  of  the  authority  of  General  Councils,  saith, 
that  "  when  they  be  gathered  together,  forasmuch  as  they  be  an 
assembly  of  men,  whereof  all  be  not  governed  by  the  Spirit 
and  Word  of  God,  they  may  err,  and  sometimes  have  erred, 
even  in  things  pertaining  unto  God.  Wherefore  things  ordained 
by  them  as  necessary  to  salvation  have  neither  strength  nor 
authority,  unless  it  may  be  declared  that  they  be  taken  out  of 
Holy  Scripture." 

Here  we  have  a  strong  denial  of  any  authority  in  General 
Councils,  independent  of  the  written  Word  of  God.  The  respect 
due  to  them  as  expounders  of  the  Scriptures,  is  a  totally  differ- 
ent question,  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  consider  more 
at  large  by  and  by.  It  is  proper  to  observe,  however,  that 
the  whole  of  this  Article  was  omitted  in  the  American  Church, 
although  not  for  any  reason  which  would  affect  its  general 
doctrine. 

Lastly,  the  34th  Article,  speaking  of  the  traditions  of  the 
Church,  uses  these  words  : 

"  It  is  not  necessary  that  traditions  and  ceremonies  be  in  all 
places  one,  and  utterly  like,  for  at  all  times  they  have  been 
divers,  and  may  be  changed  according  to  the  diversities  of 
countries,  times,  and  men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  or- 
dained against  God's  Word.  Whosoever,  through  his  private 
judgment,  wiUingly  and  purposely,  doth  openly  break  the  tra- 

c2' 


18  THE    FATHERS. 

ditions  and  ceremonies  af  the  Church,  which  be  not  repugnant 
to  God's  Word,  and  be  ordained  and  approved  by  common 
authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly,  (that  others  may  fear 
to  do  the  Hke,)  as  he  that  offendeth  against  the  common  order 
of  the  Church,  and  hurteth  the  authority  of  the  magistrate, 
and  woundelh  the  consciences  of  the  weak  brethren.  Every 
particular  Or  national  Church  hath  authority  to  ordain,  change 
and  abolish,  ceremonies  or  riles  of  the  Church  ordained  only 
by  man's  authority,  so  that  all  things  be  done  unto  edifying." 

In  this  Article  there  is  an  express  limitation  upon  the  exer- 
cise of  private  judgment,  coupled  with  as  express  a  declaration 
of  the  power  of  a  particular  or  national  Church  over  rites  and 
ceremonies;  yet  here,  as  every  where  else,  there  is  the  utmost 
deference  inculcated  towards  the  Bible. 

There  is  a  part  of  the  English  law,  however,  although  it  is 
not  expressed  in  the  Articles,  and  has  no  formal  recognition  in 
the  system  of  the  American  Church,  which  I  consider  import- 
ant to  a  perfect  understanding  of  our  doctrine  concerning  the 
rule  of  faith.  And  this  is  the  provision,  that  Scripture  shall  be 
expounded  according  to  the  sense  of  the  ancient  fathers.  The 
same  principle  indeed  appears  throughout  the  Homilies,  and  is 
plainly  set  forth  in  the  Preface  to  the  English  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  And  although  our  Church  in  the  United  States,  whe- 
ther considered  politically,  or  ecclesiastically,  is  a  distinct  and 
independent  body,  yet  the  religious  principles  of  the  Church  of 
England  are  for  the  most  part  so  identified  with  ours,  that  the  de- 
fence of  one  is  the  defence  of  both.  This,  unity  is  well  expressed 
in  the  Preface  to  our  American  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  where 
it  is  said,  that  our  Church  is  far  from  intending  to  depart  from 
the  Church  of  England  in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  dis- 
cipline, or  worship,  or  further  than  local  circumstances  require. 

The  limits  of  this  discourse  will  only  allow  of  a  very  brief 
discussion  of  some  of  the  more  important  questions  arising  out 
of  those  Articles,  and  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 


OBJECTIOINS.  19 

Roman  controversy.  But  that  we  may  proceed  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable without  trespassing  too  long,  I  shall  ask  your  attention 
while  I  state  the  objections  made  to  our  rule  of  faith  by  Dr. 
Wiseman,  and  his  brother  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

They  strongly  object  that  the  right  of  private  judgment,  by 
which  every  man  is  at  liberty  to  gather  his  own  faith  out  of 
the  Scriptures,  is  productive  of  endless  diversity,  confusion, 
and  error  in  religion ;  and  they  point  triumphantly  to  the  num- 
ber of  sects  which  distract  the  Protestant  part  of  Christendom, 
as  proof  positive  of  the  assertion. 

They  say  that  we  are  indebted  to  them  for  the  very  Bi- 
ble on  which  we  rest  our  faith,  and  that  it  is  unreasonable 
to  trust  them  for  this,  and  yet  trust  them  no  farther. 

And  they  insist  that  there  is  no  other  practicable  mode 
of  attaining  Christian  unity,  than  that  laid  down  in  their  own 
S5^stem.  • 

Now,  in  order  to  appreciate  the  force  of  these  objections, 
we  shall  have  to  ask  your  attention  to  several  lectures,  in  the 
course  of  which  they  shall  be  fully  discussed.  For  the  pre- 
sent, however,  we  shall  only  briefly  examine  the  following 
topics,  all  of  which,  as  you  will  readily  perceive,  bear  upon 
the  line  of  the  Roman  argument. 

First  then,  let  us  consider  the  right  and  absolute  necessity 
of  the  exercise  of  private  judgment,  or  in  other  words,  the  exer- 
cise by  every  individual  of  his  own  faculties  in  the  question  of 
religion,  upon  the  truth  propounded  to  him  from  the  Word  of 
God. 

Secondly,  the  degree  of  credit  due  to  the  Church  in  faith- 
fully handing  down  to  us  the  volume  of  inspiration. 

Thirdly,  the  authority  to  be  conceded  to  the  primitive 
Church,  in  the  character  of  judges  or  interpreters  of  the  sense 
of  Scripture. 

And  fourthly,  the  restriction  of  the  right  of  private  judgment 
to  the  duty  of  selecting,  each  man  for  himself,  that  Church 


20  PRIVATE    JUDGMENT. 

which  appears  to  have  retained  most  faithfully  the  distinguish- 
ino-  marks  of  Scriptural  or  Apostolic  Christianity. 

I  doubt  not,  my  brethren,  that  you  will  find  this  course  of 
argument  somewhat  trying  to  your  patience,  and  yet  I  fore- 
warn you,  that  throughout  our  whole  contemplated  series  as 
well  as  here,  the  establishment  of  truth  can  only  be  fully 
attained  by  close  and  thorough  reflection.  A  vague  and  super- 
ficial notion  of  religion  may  indeed  be  acquired  without  the 
trouble  of  thought,  but  clear  and  distinct  views  absolutely 
demand,  as  they  most  richly  repay,  persevering  and  laborious 
investigation. 

First  then,  as  to  the  right  and  necessity  of  private  judgment, 
I  aver  that  the  Lord  himself  addresses  his  sacred  truth  to  no 
other  principle.  *'  Come  now,  and  let  us  reason  together,"  is  his 
language.  "  Turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die,"  is  his  expostulation. 
"Unto  you,  O  men,  I  call,"  saith  the  wisdom  of  heaven,  "  and  my 
voice  is  to  the  sons  of  men."  "  Come  unto  me,"  saith  the  com- 
passionate  Redeemer,  "all  ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest."  To  what  are  all  these  and  thousands 
of  similar  passages  directed?  Is  it  not  to  the  private  judgment, 
the  individual  powers  of  sensation  and  thought  which  the  hand 
of  God  has  bestowed  upon  us?  True,  these  faculties  are  not 
sufficient  to  bring  men  to  repentance  and  faith  without  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  with  that  influence  to  open 
the  eyes  which  are  blind,  and  the  ears  which  are  deaf  by 
nature,  is  it  any  thing  else  which  prepares  the  sinner  for  the 
service  of  God,  but  the  reception  of  the  Word  of  God.  by  his 
own  individual  assent  to  its  truth  and  power? 

I  do  not  deny  that  the  imposing  spectacle  of  the  Church, 
visibly  and  prosperously  established  before  men,  with  her 
ministry,  her  order,  and  her  mighty  sway,  is  calculated  to 
attract  attention  and  excite  respect,  and  thus  become  a  motive 
for  the  examination  of  the  divine  proclamation  of  mercy,  pro- 
pounded to  mankind  upon  the  authority  of  God's  own  Word. 


PRIVATE    JUDGMENT.  21 

But  when  Abel  yielded  his  heart  in  faith — when  Noah  prepared 
the  ark— -when  Abraham  left  his  kindred  to  be  an  exile  in  the 
land  of  Canaan — when  Moses  went  back  to  Egypt  as  the  de- 
liverer of  Israel — when  Elijah  thought  himself  alone  in  the 
midst  of  idolatry  and  profanation — when  the  apostles  saw  their 
hopes  quenched  in  the  darkness  of  their  beloved  Master's  se- 
pulchre— when  St.  Paul  wandered  about  from  city  to  city,  dis- 
puting in  the  markets,  teaching  in  the  synagogue,  or  leading 
the  Athenians  on  Mars  Hill  to  contemplate  the  attributes  of  the 
unknown  God — where,  in  all  these  instances  was  the  Church,  to 
aid  the  private  judgment  of  the  individual  in  deciding  upon  the 
truth  of  the  word  of  inspiration  ?  Nay,  is  it  not  demonstrable, 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  that  the  Word  of  God,  embraced 
through  the  operation  of  his  grace  by  the  private  judgment, 
must  be  anterior  to  the  Church,  since  the  Church  consists  of  a 
company  or  society  of  believers,  and  in  the  nature  of  things, 
individual  belief  must  go  before  the  formation  of  any  such 
society  1 

But  to  us  who  live  after  the  full  organization  of  the 
Church,  it  may  be  said  that  the  order  of  the  whole  question  is 
changed,  because  we  are  now  obliged  to  take,  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  Church,  what  was  originally  received  by  an  extra- 
ordinary communication.  This,  however,  only  alters  our  mode 
of  arriving  at  the  standard  of  our  faith,  without  at  all  affecting 
the  standard  itself;  since  it  is  9bYious  that  whether  the  will  of 
God  be  delivered  to  me  by  the  word  or  by  the  pen  of  the  in- 
spired instrument,  I  am  equally  bound  to  receive  it.  And 
whether  the  word  of  God  be  delivered  to  me  by  evangelists  and 
apostles  in  person,  or  be  transmitted  in  writing  through  the 
channel  of  the  Church,  its  authority  and  my  submission  to  it 
must  be  the  same,  and  the  exercise  of  private  judgment  in  either 
case  must  be  equally  indispensable. 

Here,  however,  two  questions  arise,  in  which  correct  ideas 
of  the  Church  become  of  the  highest  importance.    One  of  them 


22  CLAIM    OF    THE    CHURCH, 

respects  her  credit,  as  the  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ, 
the  other  regards  her  claim  to  be  its  best  interpreter. 

The  first  question  resolves  itself  into  the  simplest  form, 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  Church,  or  the  body  of  Christ's 
faithful  people,  must  of  necessity,  be  the  only  safe  guardian  of 
the  Scriptures,  because  none  but  the  Church  could  have  had  any 
serious  motive  for  their  preservation,  and  to  her  they  were  the 
very  charter  of  all  her  hope.  It  is  saying  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose, therefore,  to  tell  us  that  we  are  indebted  to  the  Church 
for  the  Bible,  since  the  Bible  could  have  descended  to  us  in  no 
other  way ;  and  in  receiving  it  from  the  Church  we  have  all 
the  evidence  that  the  case  allows,  and  can  ask  no  more.  The 
first  Churches  obtained  their  Canon  of  Scripture  from  apos- 
tolic authority,  and  handed  it  down  with  religious  care  to  each 
succeeding  generation,  so  that  by  this  simple  yet  necessary 
principle  of  transmission,  we  have  the  very  word  of  inspira- 
tion in  its  own  integrity,  whatever  else  may  have  been  liable 
to  change-. 

The  second  question,  namely,  the  claim  of  the  Church  to 
be  the  interpreter  of  Scripture,  is  a  totally  different  matter, 
and  yet  it  is  one  which,  to  a  reflecting  and  unprejudiced  mind, 
could  never  have  been  made  the  subject  of  a  doubt,  with  re- 
gard to  those  points  in  which  the  judgment  of  the  Church  has 
been  harmonious.  For  all  must  allow  that  the  first  Chris- 
tians, who  had  the  privilege  of  the  inspired  apostles'  teaching 
for  years,  possessed  advantages  altogether  superior  to  our- 
selves in  ascertaining  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  Titus,  the  first 
bishop  of  Crete,  for  example,  and  Timothy,  the  first  bishop  of 
Ephesus,  were  instructed  by  St.  Paul  for  the  express  work  of 
the  ministry.  Who  would  refuse  them  a  peculiar  veneration 
for  that  very  reason,  if  it  were  possible  to  hear  their  preaching 
at  the  present  day?  Or  if  their  favourite  disciples,  to  whom 
they  had  communicated  the  results  of  their  familiar  intercourse 
with  the  great  apostle,  were  now  before  us,  who  could  per- 


AS    THE    INTElirRETEK.  23 

suade  us  that  they  were  not  the  safest  guides  for  the  soul  ?  It 
is  not,  therefore,  an  assumption  without  argument,  but  a  plain 
deduction  of  common  sense,  that  the  nearer  we  can  approach 
to  the  apostolic  fountain,  the  more  highly  we  must  esteem  the 
opinions  or  judgment  of  the  Church.  But  the  first  generation 
of  teachers  after  the  apostles  were  too  much  occupied  in  doing 
and  suffering,  to  leave  many  written  memorials  behind  them. 
And  the  remains  even  of  the  second  are  not  numerous.  As 
the  progress  of  the  Church  advanced,  indeed,  they  multipliod, 
and  highly  do  we  estimate  them  all.  But  we  find  a  want  of 
unanimity  amongst  them,  which  totally  forbids  that  we  should 
think  them  free  from  error.  So  early  as  the  second  century, 
for  instance,  soon  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  we  be- 
hold them  disputing  about  the  time  for  holding  the  festival  of 
Easter.  Further  dissensions  concerning  the  baptism  of  here- 
tics spring  up  in  the  third  century,  and  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth,  the  first  General  Council  is  summoned  by  the  Emperor 
Constantino,  to  compose  the  strife  which  convulsed  the  Church 
upon  the  all-important  subject  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  divinity 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  In  all  their  disputations,  however, 
we  find  them  unanimous  in  appealing  to  the  Scriptures  as  the 
standard  of  faith.  Tradition,  indeed,  was  sometimes  called 
upon  in  the  way  of  corroborative  interpretation,  but  the  deci- 
sive evidences  of  truth  were  only  sought  for  in  the  Bible. 
Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more  manifest  to  the  unprejudiced 
student  of  antiquity  than  this:  that  the  primitive  Christians 
made  the  Bible  their  infallible  rule  of  faith,  as  we  do,  and  used 
the  help  of  tradition  on  the  very  same  ground  that  we  our- 
selves allow,  namely,  as  being  entitled  to  the  highest  respect 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  but  nothing  more. 

From  this  brief  statement,  which  we  shall  have  to  en- 
large on  and  verify  in  a  fixture  discourse,  it  results  undenia- 
bly, that  the  claims  of  the  Bible  to  be  received  above  all  other 
rules  or  standards  of  faith  as  alone  infallible,  are  sustained  not 


24  LIMITATION    OF 

only  by  the  fact  that  it  is  the  sure  record  of  the  Word  of  God, 
but  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  primitive  fathers.  So 
that  when  we  rest  our  faith  on  the  same  foundation,  we  are 
justified,  first,  by  the  reason  of  the  thing  itself,  and,  secondly, 
by  the  concurrent  admission  of  those  who  had  the  advantage 
of  living  so  much  nearer  than  ourselves  to  the  apostolic  day. 
And  the  authority  which  should  be  conceded  to  the  primitive 
Church,  in  the  character  of  judges  or  interpreters  of  Scripture, 
is  readily  resolved  in  the  same  way.  For  surely  the  reve- 
rence which  we  jdeld  to  the  ancient  fathers  cannot,  in  justice, 
go  beyond  the  reverence  which  they  claimed  for  themselves, 
or  which  they  accorded  to  each  other.  As  judges  and  inter- 
preters of  the  Written  word  of  God,  they  have  our  absolute 
confidence  wherever  they  are  unanimous.  But  where  they 
are  not  unanimous,  we  are  compelled  to  do  as  they  did — com- 
pare their  discordant  sentiments  with  Scripture,  and  adopt  that 
sense  which  seems  most  conformable  to  the  language  of  inspi- 
ration. 

In  determining  the  last  question,  as  to  the  obligation  rest- 
ing on  all  men,  according  to  their  light  and  opportunity,  to 
select  their  Church  for  themselves,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to 
discover  the  argument  furnished  by  the  same  recurrence  to 
antiquity.  For  since,  in  some  things,  the  infallible  standard 
of  the  Scriptures  has  been  interpreted  by  different  portions  of 
the  Church  in  different  ways,  so  that  in  agreeing  with  one 
party,  we  must  perforce  differ  from  another;  what  have  we 
but  our  own  judgment,  under  God,  to  decide  for  us  between 
them?  Or  who  shall  deprive  us  of  the  privilege  of  obeying 
the  apostles'  precept — "  Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which 
is  good  1" 

I  may  not,  however,  conclude  even  this  cursory  view  of  the 
principles  set  forth  by  our  Articles  on  the  rule  of  faith,  without 
directing  your  attention  to  the  wholesome  limits  provided  for 
this  exercise  of  private  judgment.     It  is  the  plain  doctrine  of 


PRIVATE    JUDGMENT.  25 

our  Church,  that  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  salvation 
are  not  only  declared  in  Scripture,  but  are  settled  of  old  in  the 
interpretation  and  judgment  of  the  primitive  Church,  as  by  the 
several  creeds,  which  are  accordingly  laid  down  as  immov- 
able landmarks  in  our  system.  Those  points  which  are  not 
essential  to  salvation,  and  which  different  portions  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church  have  settled  differently,  are  nevertheless  to  be 
received  and  followed  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  order  by  the 
members  of  each  particular  Church,  just  as  that  Church  to 
which  they  belong  has  seen  good  to  direct  them.  Allowance, 
therefore,  is  given  to  private  judgment,  to  choose  which 
Church  it  will  adopt;  but  no  allowance  is  given  to  differ  from 
all  for  the  sake  of  setting  up  a  novelty,  and  thereby  casting  a 
new  brand  of  dissension  into  Christ's  kingdom,  on  account  of 
some  comparatively  trifling  matter  which  belongs  not  to  the 
integrity  of  the  faith.  Here  then,  you  perceive,  we  allow  all 
Christian  liberty,  but  no  licentiousness;  the  right  to  purify 
the  old  temple,  but  not  to  build  a  new  one ;  the  privilege  and 
even  the  duty  of  bringing  the  Church  as  nearly  as  possible  to 
the  apostolic  standard  of  the  early  faith  of  Christendom,  but 
no  privilege  for  the  tongue  of  censorious  non-conformity,  or 
the  hand  of  wanton  innovation. 

I  have  only  to  add,  my  brethren,  that  the  subject  before  us 
has  been  handled  but  slightly  in  many  respects,  because  it  is 
so  complicated  with  that  of  our  next  lecture — the  rule  of  faith 
propounded  by  the  Church  of  Rome— that  the  discussion  of 
their  doctrine  will  necessarily  throw  additional  light  and  evi- 
dence upon  our  own.  Meanwhile,  may  the  Spirit  of  the  only 
living  and  true  God  direct  and  sanctify  you,  that  you  may  not 
merely  acknowledge  the  standard  of  the  faith,  but  may  appro- 
priate the  faith  itself,  so  as  to  know  by  your  own  experience 
how  it  works  by  love,  and  purifies  the  heart,  and  overcomes 
the  world. 


LECTURE    III. 


1  Cor.  ill.  3. — For  ye  are  yet  carnal:  for  whereas  there  is  among' 
you  envying  and  strife  and  divisions;  are  ye  not  carnalj  and  walk  as 


The  subject  of  our  last  discourse,  my  brethren,  was  the 
Rule  of  Faith,  which,  in  contradistinction  to  the  modern 
Church  of  Rome,  was  established  by  the  Church  of  England 
at  the  Reformation ;  and  which,  as  you  will  probably  remem- 
ber, reduced  the  whole  of  the  faith  required  for  salvation,  to 
the  Bible  alone.  We  explained  what  we  understood  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  then  stated  some  of  the  various  senses  in 
which  the  term  Church  was  to  be  received.  We  asserted  the 
right  and  the  necessity  of  the  exercise  of  private  judgment,  as 
the  unalienable  privilege  and  obligation  of  every  individual; 
since,  without  it,  neither  repentance,  nor  faith,  nor  obedience, 
nor  any  other  commanded  duty,  could  be  possible  to  man. 
We  stated,  nevertheless,  that  wherever  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  was  unanimous  on  any  point  of  Christian  faith  or 
practice,  no  individual  opinion  could  be  allowed  to  have  any 
weight;  but,  that,  wherever  the  judgment  of  the  Church  was 
not  unanimous,  the  appeal  to  Scripture,  and  the  humble  and 
faithful  use  of  our  own  faculties,  with  a  submissive  reliance  on 
the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  the  only  resource  of  those  who 
were  the  appointed  guides  of  their  brethren.  We  cited,  at 
large,  those  Articles  of  our  Church  which  had  a  bearing  on  the 
subject,  and  we  then  left  the  further  discussion  of  it  to  the 
present  lecture,  where,  in  examining  the  Roman  rule  of  faith, 


ROMAN    RULE    OF    FAITH.  27 

the  difference  between  the  two  systems  would  be  more  appa- 
rent, and  therefore  better  understood.  We  are  now,  according 
to  our  proposed  arrangement,  to  enter  upon  this  subject,  and  we 
ask  your  attention  to  a  plain  examination  of  it,  in  the  full  confi- 
dence that  you  will  need  no  other  stimulus  to  your  interest 
than  the  recollection,  that  it  is  a  doctrine  on  which  hangs  the 
whole  religious  system  of  more  than  one  hundred  millions  of 
the  Christian  world. 

The  rule  of  faith  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  professes,  like  our 
own,  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  of  course,  it  includes  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  But  they  maintain  that,  besides  the  Scrip- 
tures, there  was  an  oral  delivery  of  divine  truth  to  the  Church, 
which  is  equally  obligatory  on  every  believer;  of  which  un- 
written Word,  the  Church  is  the  sole  depository,  and  in  the 
safe  preservation  of  which,  as  well  as  in  her  power  of  inter- 
preting the  written  Word,  she  cannot  err,  being  absolutely 
infallible. 

It  is  a  source  of  much  satisfaction  to  find  the  late  distin- 
guished advocate  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  Dr.  Wiseman, 
resting  the  whole  of  this  doctrine  on  the  Scriptures,  since  thus 
the  quality  of  the  evidence  is  brought  into  a  much  more  intel- 
ligible compass.  The  following  is  his  language,  and  we  beg 
that  you  will  mark  it,  my  brethren,  with  especial  care.  (p.  51, 
Vol.  I.  Am.  ed.)  "We  believe,"  saith  he,  "that  there  is  no 
other  ground-work  whatever  for  faith,  except  the  written  Word 
of  God ;  because  we  allow  no  power  in  religion  to  any  living 
authority,  except  inasmuch  as  its  right  to  define  is  conferred 
in  God's  written  Word.  If,  therefore,  you  hear  that  the 
Church  claims  authority  to  define  articles  of  faith,  and  to 
instruct  her  children  what  they  must  believe,  you  must  not  for 
one  moment  think  that  she  pretends  to  any  authority  or  sanc- 
tion for  that  power,  save  what  she  conceives  herself  to  derive 
from  the  clear,  express,  and  explicit  words  of  Scripture. 
Thus,  therefore,  it  is  truly  said,  that  whatever  is  believed  by 


28 


BIBLE    AND    TRADITION. 


US,  although  not  positively  expressed  in  the  written  Word  of 
God,  is  believed,  because  the  principle  adopted  by  us  is  there 
expressly  revealed." 

"By  the  unwritten  Word  of  God  then,"  continues  Dr.  Wise- 
man, "we  mean  a  body  of  doctrines,  which  in  consequence  of 
express  declarations  in  the  written  Word,  we  believe  not  to 
have  been  committed  to  writing,  but  delivered  by  Christ  to  his 
apostles,  and  by  the  apostles  to  their  successors.  We  believe 
that  no  new  doctrine  can  be  introduced  into  the  Church,  but 
that  every  doctrine  which  we  hold  has  existed  and  been  taught 
in  it,  ever  since  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  was  handed 
down  by  them  to  their  successors,  under  the  only  guarantee 
on  which  we  receive  doctrines  from  the  Church,  that  is, 
Christ's  promise  to  abide  with  it  for  ever,  to  assist,  direct  and 
instruct  it,  and  always  teach  in  and  through  it.  So  that, 
.while  giving  our  explicit  credit,  and  trusting  our  judgment  to 
it,  we  are  believing  and  trusting  to  the  express  teaching  of 
Christ  himself,'^'' 

Here  then  we  have  the  plain  declaration  of  this  learned  and 
ingenious  defender  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  the  Scriptures 
require  us  to  believe  the  voice  of  the  Church  to  be  the  voice  of 
Christ,  the  unwritten  Word  delivered  by  the  Church  to  be  equal 
to  the  Scriptures  in  point  of  authority,  and  the  infallible  truth 
of  the  Church  to  be  the  same  in  substance  as  the  infallible 
truth  of  the  Bible;  and  therefore  the  Roman  rule  of  faith 
includes  the  Scriptures,  together  with  the  decisions  of  the 
Church,  attributing  as  much  unerring  assurance  of  divine 
truth  to  the  one,  as  to  the  other. 

But  we  are  not  only  indebted  to  this  distinguished  writer  for 
the  foregoing  statement  of  the  Rule  of  Faith.  He  gives  us 
also  a  very  candid  declaration  of  the  consequences,  to  any  one 
belonging  to  his  Church,  that  presumes  to  doubt  it.  "For  the 
moment  any  Roman  Catholic  doubts,"  saith  he,  (p.  65,)  "not 
alone  the  principles  of  his  faith,  but  any  one  of  those  doctrines 


RESULT    OF   THE    RULE.  29 

which  are  thereon  based — the  moment  he  allows  himself  to 
call  in  question  any  of  the  dogmas  which  the  Church  teaches, 
as  having  been  handed  down  within  her — that  moment  the 
Church  conceives  him  to  have  virtually  abandoned  all  con- 
nexion with  her.  For  she  exacts  such  implicit  obedience, 
that  if  any  member,  however  valuable,  however  he  may  have 
devoted  his  early  talents  to  the  illustration  of  her  doctrines, 
fall  away  from  his  belief  in  any  one  point,  he  is  cut  off  without 
reserve;  and  we  have,  in  our  times,  seen  striking  and  awful 
instances  of  the  fact."  We  shall  have  occasion  to  show  you, 
brethren,  in  a  future  discourse,  that  the  effect  of  this  is  to 
place  the  authority  of  the  Church  above  the  authority  of  the 
Bible. 

But  before  we  examine  the  Scriptural  proofs  relied  on  for 
this  vast  prerogative  on  behalf  of  the  Church,  which  will  form 
the  subject  of  our  next  lecture,  we  are  bound  to  notice  one 
general  argument,  by  which  Dr.  Wiseman,  and  all  other  writers 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  endeavour  to  demonstrate  the  reason- 
ableness and  the  necessity  of  such  an  infallible  authority  in  the 
Christian  system. 

And  here,  they  draw  their  strongest  proof  from  the  deplor- 
able fact,  that  Protestants,  professing  to  make  the  Bible  their 
rule  of  faith,  are  so  divided  into  jarring  and  discordant  sects, 
that  there  is  no  unity  amongst  them.  And  therefore  they 
insist  upon  the  experience  of  the  last  three  hundred  years,  as 
affording  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  superior  advantages, 
credit  and  safety  of  their  rule  of  faith,  since  it  excludes  all  the 
irregular  action  of  private  judgment  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  brings  all  minds  to  the  same  infallible  standard 
of  decision. 

The  fact  here  stated,  my  beloved  brethren,  is  too  glaring  to 
be  denied.  Awful,  shameful,  and  ruinous  to  the  best  interests 
of  Scriptural  Christianity,  have  been  the  dissensions  and  strifes 

d2 


30  PROTESTANT    DISSENSIONS. 

of  that  portion  of  Christendom  which  we  call  reformed. 
The  spiritual  despotism  of  Rome,  once  broken,  has  been  fol- 
lowed by  total  licentiousness  of  opinion,  and  the  sin  of  schism 
has  lost  its  terrors,  until  Christians  have  imagined  that  division 
was  a  blessing,  which  fulfilled  the  double  purpose  of  keeping  a 
wholesome  guard  upon  the  encroachments  of  error,  and  of 
indulging  the  tastes  of  mankind  with  a  useful  variety  of  reli- 
gious entertainment. 

Seated  in  conscious  security  upon  the  throne  of  her  domi- 
nion, the  Church  of  Rome  has  looked  in  derision  and  in  scorn 
at  the  discordant  hosts  of  Protestant  Christians,  who,  instead 
of  uniting  their  arms  against  her  errors,  have  been  struggling 
to  beat  down  one  another.  And  the  unbelieving  world,  the 
Jew,  and  the  Mahometan,  have  learned  to  mock  at  the  whole; 
taught  by  Rome  that  there  could  be  no  truth  where  there  was 
no  unity,  and  taught  by  the  quarrels  of  Protestants  that  there 
was  no  certainty  of  the  truth  to  be  obtained  at  all.  Respect 
for  the  authorized  priesthood — the  ministry  of  Christ — has 
been  trodden  to  the  ground :  reverence  for  antiquity  has  been 
denounced,  as  a  weak  superstition :  the  discipline  and  govern- 
ment of  the  Churches  have  been  delivered  up  to  the  influence 
of  wealth  and  popularity :  the  very  edifices  erected  for  the 
worship  of  God  have  been  held  ready  for  the  accommodation 
of  any  worldly  exhibition  :  and  all  the  solemn  characteristics  of 
the  high  and  holy  privilege,  by  which  man — sinful  and 
unworthy — is  admitted  to  hold  communion -with  the  Majesty 
of  the  invisible  Creator,  through  the  atonement  and  righteous- 
ness of  the  divine  Redeemer — all  the  sanctity — all  the  awe — 
all  the  signs  of  outward  humility — all  the  appendages  of  out- 
ward devotion — have  been  denounced  under  the  common  and 
undistinguishing  cry  of  Popery  and  Priestcraft. 

The  fearful  consequences  of  this  sad  desecration  are  begin- 
ning to  be  apparent  to  the  most  careless  observer,  who  will 
but  pause  to  contemplate  the  present  state  of  the  Christian 


PROGRESS  OF  ROME.  31 

world.  There  is  a  tendency  amongst  the  thoughtful  and  re- 
flecting, in  many  quarters,  to  grow  weary  and  sick  of  the 
endless  confusion  around  them,  and  to  look  for  order  and  for 
peace  wherever  it  can  be  found.  The  apparent  union  and  ve- 
nerable antiquity  of  Rome  attract  them,  and  they  feel  strongly 
inclined  to  overlook  her  corrupt  doctrines,  for  the  sake  of  her 
magnificent  ritual,  and  her  solemn  repose.  And  thus,  of  late 
years,  converts,  as  they  are  called,  of  learning,  of  rank,  and 
of  much  influence,  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  in  England 
herself,  have  come  forth  to  prove  the  power  of  the  temptation, 
and  to  show  to  the  jarring  communions  of  Protestants  the  force 
of  St.  Paul's  admonition : — "  If  ye  bite  and  devour  one  another, 
take  heed  that  ye  be  not  consumed  one  of  another."     (Gal.  v. 

15.) 

The  most  extraordinary  manifestation  of  this  tendency, 
however,  is  in  the  wonderful  change  exhibited  by  England 
within  our  own  time.  England,  which  gave  to  the  principles 
of  the  Reformation  their  most  effective  support,  and  their  fair- 
est promise  of  prosperity — England,  whose  statute  books  were 
marked  with  the  strongest  Knes  of  antipathy  to  Rome  and  ha- 
tred to  Popery — England,  whose  apprehensions  and  precau- 
tions seemed  to  be  justified  by  the  martyr-fires  which  were 
kindled  to  sustain  the  Roman  doctrine  of  transubstantiation — 
whose  queen  had  been  excommunicated  by  Pope  Sixtus  V., 
and  her  crown  attempted  to  be  transferred  by  his  usurped 
power  to  the  king  of  Spain,  in  punishment  for  her  refusal  to 
return  under  the  Papal  domination — England,  whose  establish- 
ed Church  was  bound  to  commemorate,  by  a  solemn  yearly 
service,  the  gunpowder  plot,  which  was  alleged  to  be  another 
work  of  Popish  treason, — whose  functionaries  of  State,  in  their 
oaths  of  office,  were  obliged  to  swear  that  they  held  the  doc- 
trine of  Rome  to  be  a  damnable  idolatry,  and  whose  very  so- 
vereigns, in  their  coronation  oath,  were  bound  to  vow  the 
maintenance  and  support  of  the  Protestant  religion — this  very 


32  ANGLICAN    RULE    OP    FAITH. 

England,  to  the  amazement  of  the  Christian  world,  has  admit- 
ted the  Roman  Catholics  to  her  Parliament — opens  her  trea- 
sures to  sustain  their  theological  seminaries,  priests  and 
bishops — allows  the  free  and  complete  toleration  of  their  wor- 
ship— listens  to  their  arguments  with  growing  inclination  and 
favour, — and  stands  at  this  hour  in  such  a  position,  that  it  is 
a  grave  question  amongst  reflecting  minds  whether  the  Church 
of  Rome  may  not  yet  regain  the  complete  ascendency  over 
England  herself,  before  the  end  of  the  present  generation. 

A  fair  counterpart  to  this  picture  is  exhibited  in  the  United 
States;  where  it  is  unquestionable  that  the  condition  and  pros- 
pects of  the  Roman  Church  are  in  a  course  of  rapid  advance- 
ment. Union  is  their  strength,  division  is  the  weakness  of 
those  that  stand  opposed  to  them.  And  therefore,  in  their 
controversy  with  us  about  the  rule  of  faith,  it  is  always  a 
prominent  and  a  favourite  argument,  that  they  can  point  so 
triumphantly  to  the  contrast  exhibited  in  the  state  of  the  reli- 
gious world;  and  thus,  seeming  to  have  the  practical  proof 
altogether  on  their  side,  they  plausibly  contend,  that  the  rule 
which  works  confusion  instead  of  unity,  must  be  an  insuffi- 
cient rule — that  the  rule  which  works  harmony  and  peace, 
must  be  the  rule  which  Christ  intended  for  his  people. 

Brethren,  I  know,  too  well,  the  force  of  this  practical  argu- 
ment; and  no  words  of  mine  can  do  justice  to  the  anxiety 
which  I  have  long  felt,  that  all  Christians  who  hold  the  blessed 
Scriptures  to  be  the  true  rule  of  faith,  would  give  their  minds 
solemnly  and  prayerfully  to  the  examination  of  the  only  princi- 
ple which  could  counteract  its  influence.  This  principle  I 
will  proceed  to  explain,  so  as  to  show,  that  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  understood  according  to  their  application 
in  her  own  system,  point  out  the  true  course,  by  which  the 
errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome  must  be  abandoned  on  the  one 
hand,  without  any  risk  of  confusion  or  strife  upon  the  other. 

You  may  remember,  that  in  our  last  discourse,  I  set  forth 


ANGLICAN    RULE    OF    FAITH.  33 

the  language  of  several  of  those  Articles,  in  which  the  follow- 
ing propositions  were  clearly  asserted  : — 

First,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  the  true  standard  of 
faith. 

Secondly,  that  the  Church  had  authority  in  controversies 
of  faith,  but  yet  had  no  power  to  exert  this  authority  in  con- 
trariety to  Scripture. 

Thirdly,  that  the  Church,  whether  acting  in  General 
Councils  or  otherwise,  was  not  infallible,  but  had  a  right  to 
claim  obedience  only  so  far  as  her  decisions  were  conforniable 
to  the  written  Word  of  God. 

And  fourthly,  that  no  man  should  be  allowed  to  set  his 
private  judgment  in  opposition  to  the  Church,  so  long  as  the 
Church  was  not  plainly  in  opposition  to  Scripture. 

Now,  if  you  will  put  these  propositions  carefully  together, 
you  will  find  them  result  in  this : — that  the  Scriptures  are  the 
rule  of  faith,  and  that  the  Church  holds  the  office  of  interpre- 
ter. Or  in  other  words,  the  Scriptures  lay  down  the  law  of 
faith,  and  the  Church  is  the  Judge  to  expound  the  law,  and 
apply  it  to  the  cases  of  individuals.  And  when  we  ask  what 
Church  shall  exercise  this  power  of  interpretation,  we  reply, 
that  although,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  order,  the  smallest 
body  of  Christians,  to  whom  the  word  Church  can  be  applied, 
is  better  than  a  single  man — although  the  importance  of  the 
term  Church  rises  with  the  magnitude  and  official  responsibi- 
lity of  its  character — although,  when  it  reaches  the  dignity  of 
a  national  Church,  it  must  be  a  case  of  plain  contrariety  to 
the  Supreme  Lawgiver,  which  would  justify  any  individual  in 
opposing  it — yet,  in  the  principles  we  are  considering,  there  is 
a  still  more  sublime  aspect  of  the  Church  which  belongs  to 
the  subject,  namely,  the  Church  Catholic  or  Universal; 
such  as  it  was  at  the  time  when  the  epithet  Catholic  became 
in  current  use — such  as  it  was  at  the  time  when  it  settled  the 
canon  of  Scripture — while  yet  it  remained  in  the  comparative 


34  THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH. 

purity  of  its  primitive  state,  and  long  before  the  Church  of 
Rome  assumed  the  title  of  the  "  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all 
the  Churches.''''  And  if  you  ask  me  for  the  chronology  of 
this  period,  I  shall  reply,  that  until  A.  D.  312,  the  date  as- 
signed for  the  conversion  of  the  Emperor  Constantino,  the 
Church  was  subject  to  successive  persecutions  from  the  hea- 
then, some  of  which  were  dreadfully  severe;  that  the  bitter 
sufferings  endured  at  these  times  must,  under  God,  have  kept 
Christianity  unpolluted  and  clear  of  corruption,  since  all  ex- 
perience shows  that  chastisement  and  trial  are  the  friends  of 
faith,  while  prosperity  and  power  are  its  worst  enemies :  that 
when  the  Church  was  lifted  up  by  the  favour  of  the  imperial 
throne,  then  came  her  time  of  worldly  ease  and  of  spiritual 
declension,  so  that  the  brightness  of  her  primitive  faith  began 
to  wane  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  And  there- 
fore, whenever  we  can  have  access  to  the  interpretations,  cus- 
toms, worship,  and  discipline  of  the  Church  Catholic  or  Uni- 
versal up  to  this  period,  we  have  the  highest  and  safest  autho- 
rity of  judgment,  upon  the  rule  of  faith  exhibited  to  us  in  the 
written  Word  of  God. 

You  will  not  understand  me,  however,  as  asserting,  that 
even  the  primitive  Church  Catholic  is  to  be  held  infallible,  nor 
that  her  judgment  is  to  be  placed  upon  an  equality  with  the 
sacred  Scriptures.  God  forbid!  Even  amongst  men,  we  dis- 
tinguish carefully  between  the  authority  of  ih^  judge,  and  the 
authority  of  the  law.  The  representative  wisdom  and  power 
of  the  whole  commonwealth,  address  us  in  the  language  of  the 
legislature  ;  while  the  office  of  the  judge  is  ancillary  and  sub- 
ordinate. He  cannot  make  the  law,  nor  supply  its  defects, 
nor  alter  its  provisions;  and  yet  his  office  is  not  the  less  im- 
portant on  this  account;  since  he  is  appointed  to  settle  its 
construction,  to  declare  its  true  intent,  and  to  pronounce  the 
sentence  which  its  authority  sanctions.  If  every  man  were  at 
liberty  to  construe  the  law  of  the  land  for  himself,  we  should 


THE    CHURCH    IS    THE    JUDGE.  35 

have  law  enough  perhaps,  but  little  justice.  Hence  it  is  easy 
to  see,  why  tlie  judicial  office,  though  quite  distinct  from  the 
legislative  function,  and  inferior  to  it,  is  a  necessary  part  of 
every  system  of  earthly  government.  And  yet  who  would 
be  so  absurd  as  to  say,  that  the  judges  were  infallible  ? 

Now  the  same  relation  which  the  judge  bears  to  the  law,  the 
Jewish  priesthood  bore  to  the  law  of  Christ  as  it  was  then  es- 
tablished, and  the  Christian  priesthood  bears  to  the  whole 
system  of  faith,  as  it  is  committed  to  the  full  records  of  the 
Gospel.  The  authority  of  the  earthly  judge  controls  the  pri- 
vate judgment  of  advocates  and  suitors  in  the  interpretation 
of  human  law,  without  any  idea  of  his  infallibility.  Judges 
may  err,  and  judges  have  erred ;  but  their  errors  must  be  rec- 
tified by  those  that  come  after  them,  and  do  not  interfere  with 
the  exercise  of  their  official  function  at  the  time.  So  too,  the 
Jewish  priests  might  err,  and  did  err — yea,  even  to  the  rejection 
of  the  blessed  Son  of  God.  Yet  this  did  not  hinder  our  Lord 
from  saying  to  his  disciples,  (Mat.  xxiii.  2,)  "  The  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat,  all  therefore  whatsoever  they  bid 
you  observe,  that  observe  and  do ;  but  do  not  ye  after  their 
works;  for  they  say,  and  do  not :"  so  far  was  the  great  Re- 
deemer from  countenancing  any  want  of  respect  for  the  judicial 
powers  which  his  own  Word  had  established.  And  in  like 
manner  the  successors  of  the  apostles  might  err,  and  did  err ; 
and  yet  they  held  the  place  of  the  living  authority  by  Christ's 
own  appointment;  and  therefore,  unless  in  the  case  of  an  open 
and  plain  opposition  to  his  Word,  the  judgment  of  individuals 
might  not  lawfully  oppose  them. 

Thus  far,  then,  my  brethren,  you  perceive,  that  the  principle 
which  adopts  the  Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  faith,  by  no  means 
excludes  the  idea  of  official  interpretation.  On  the  contrary,  this 
principle  rather  assumes,  that  where  there  is  a  written  rule, 
there  must  be  a  class  of  authorized  interpreters.  And  there- 
fore it  results  that  the  Article  which  asserts  this  fundamental 


36  MISTAKE    OF    THE    REFORMERS, 

principle  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  other  Article  which 
declares,  that  "the  Church  hath  authority  in  controver- 
sies OF  FAITH  ;"  while,  nevertheless,  just  as  the  earthly  judge 
can  only  interpret  and  apply,  without  presuming  to  make  or  to 
alter  the  law,  so  the  Church,  as  the  Article  expresses  it,  may  not 
lawfully  ordain  any  thing  that  is  contrary  to  GocFs  Word 
written;  neither  may  the  Church  so  expound  one  place  of 
Scripture  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another  ;  neither  ought  the 
Church  to  decree  any  thing  against  the  Scriptures^  nor  enforce 
any  thing  besides  the  same  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of  sal- 
vation. All  which  expressions  are  in  the  strictest  accordance 
with  the  proper  discharge  of  the  judicial  function. 

When  we  come  to  apply  these  principles  to  the  case  of  the 
Reformation,  we  shall  see  a  strong  and  marked  distinction  in 
the  course  of  the  several  reformers,  which  clearly  accounts  for 
the  difference  in  the  result.  The  living,  judicial  authority  of 
Christ's  Church,  once  Catholic,  and  if  not  absolutely,  yet  rea- 
sonably unanimous,  ceased  to  be  so  in  a  few  centuries  after  the 
time  of  Constantine.  The  Greek  and  the  Roman  Churches 
separated,  in  consequence  of  Roman  innovation ;  and  the  in- 
fluence of  error,  throughout  the  whole  of  Europe,  increased, 
until  it  was  time,  in  the  order  of  divine  Providence,  to  teach 
the  judges  of  the  Church  to  respect  the  Bible,  and  to  compel 
them  to  abandon  that  usurped  prerogative  o[  legislating  for  the 
faith,  which  they  had  been,  for  so  long  a  time,  unlawfully 
taking  upon  them. 

In  rectifying  the  evil,  Luther  went  to  work  in  too  much  con- 
fidence of  private  judgment ;  Zuinglius  did  the  same;  Calvin 
did  the  same.  Provoked  and  excited  by  the  usurpations  of 
the  Roman  priesthood,  they  did  not  pause  to  separate  the  use 
from  the  abuse — the  usurpation,  from  the  real  judicial  authori- 
ty, committed  to  the  pastors  of  the  Church  by  Christ  himself. 
Hence  they  overthrew  the  whole  system  of  ecclesiastical 
government,  assumed  the  dangerous  principle  that  the  great 


ON   THE    CONTINENT.  37 

Head  of  the  Church  had  not  appointed  any  specific  kind  of 
government  for  it,  and  that  any  form  at  all  was  equally  accept- 
able in  his  sight,  so  that  the  Scriptures  held  their  proper  rank 
as  the  rule  of  faith  to  his  people.  The  sad  result  of  this  error, 
my  beloved  brethren,  is  the  wretched  state  of  strife  and  dissen- 
sion to  which  we  have  already  alluded.  Heresy,  in  its  deadliest 
form,  has  swept  through  the  Lutheran  Churches  and  the  Uni- 
versities of  Germany.  The  very  pulpit  of  Calvin  at  Geneva 
has  been  long  occupied  by  men,  who  preach  the  doctrine  for 
which  Calvin  condemned  Servetus  to  the  stake ;  and  still  the 
disorganizing  principle  runs  throughout  the  land,  that  the 
government  of  Christ's  Church  is  a  thing  of  indifference,  but 
that,  as  a  matter  of  high  expediency,  if  there  be  any  govern- 
ment at  all,  the  more  modern  it  is,  the  better. 

Now  I  beseech  you,  mark  the  difference  in  the  mode  of  con- 
ducting the  Reformation  in  England.  In  the  first  place,  we 
find,  that  although  it  was  undertaken  by  sovereigns,  yet  they 
committed  it  to  those  who  held  the  official  right  of  judges  in 
the  Church  of  God,  by  regular  succession  from  the  apostles. 
In  the  second  place,  we  see  that  they  conducted  it  in  the  man- 
ner of  judges,  who,  having  to  correct  a  series  of  erroneous 
decisions,  take  up  the  law,  and  carefully  consult  the  expositions 
of  their  predecessors.  And  in  the  third  place,  we  find  that 
they  paid  especial  regard  to  those  predecessors  who,  living 
nearest  to  the  time  when  the  law  was  established,  were  most 
likely  to  have  understood  its  true  meaning.  Amongst  these 
English  reformers^  therefore,  all  reverence  was  yielded  to  the 
authority  of  those  precedents,  which  the  judicial  authority  of 
the  Church  had  established  in  the  primitive  day.  They  de- 
sired to  exercise  no  other  judgment  but  that  which  had  been 
exercised  at  the  beginning;  and  they  proceeded  in  the  order 
most  consistent  with  this  sacred  and  solemn  design,  holding 
frequent  councils,  making  thorough  investigations  into  the  rich 
though  complicated  records  of  antiquity,  clearing  away,  by 

E 


•38  REFORMERS    OF    ENGLAND. 

slow  degrees,  the  novelties  that  had  been  brought  in  upon  the 
system  of  truth,  and  making  no  changes  but  those  which  the 
written  rule  of  faith  and  the  primitive  decisions  under  it,  seem- 
ed to  require.  Hence,  no  one  man  gave  his  name  to  the  Eng- 
Hsh  Church  :  no  one  man  presumed  to  fashion  it  after  his 
fancy.  Many  divines  there  were — Bishops  and  eminent  cler- 
gymen, bearing  the  regular  commission  of  judges  in  the  house 
of  God — who  were  united  in  the  mighty  undertaking.  Many 
martyrs  there  were,  who  sealed  the  sincerity  of  their  labours 
in  their  own  blood.  But  not  one  amongst  them  desired  to  do 
aught  in  the  pride  of  his  private  judgment,  nor  to  inscribe  his 
own  name  on  the  restored  and  purified  temple  of  the  Lord  of 
Hosts. 

Here,  then,  is  the  great  difference  between  the  Church  of 
England,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  German,  the  French,  and 
the  Swiss  reformers,  on  the  other.  They  all  agreed  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  were  the  Rule  or  Standard  of  faith ;  but  all, 
except  England,  assumed  the  absurdity,  that  every  man  was 
equally  authorized  to  interpret  that  rule  in  his  own  way  :  that 
the  same  God  who  had  given  the  written  law  to  his  Church 
amongst  the  Jews,  and  along  with  this  written  law  had  solemn- 
ly established  the  priesthood  as  its  only  ordinary  interpreters, 
had  wholly  neglected  to  provide  his  far  more  perfect  Church 
with  any  officers  to  exercise  the  judicial  function  :  so  that 
while  care  was  taken  to  furnish  a  rule,  no  care  was  taken  to 
secure  its  administration.  On  her  guard  against  this  vain  and 
perilous  hypothesis,  and  guided  by  the  favouring  Providence  of 
God,  England  pursued  the  true  track  of  Christian  obligation 
in  both  particulars ;  fully  asserting  the  supremacy  of  the 
written  law  of  the  Lord's  Gospel,  and  as  clearly  recognizing 
the  ministry  appointed  to  interpret  and  apply  it.  The  result 
has  signally  proved  the  wisdom  of  the  principle.  For  while 
confusion  and  strife  have  followed  in  the  train  of  the  first  three 


ROMAN    RULE.  39 

reformers,  order  and  unity  continue  with  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land to  this  day. 

And  the  great  difference  between  the  Churches  of  Rome  and 
of  England  upon  the  subject,  consists  in  this.  That  both 
admit  the  appointment,  by  Christ,  of  a  living  authority  to  inter- 
pret and  apply  his  Word  in  the  Church,  even  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  But  the  Church  of  England  holds  this  living 
authority  to  be  confined  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  points  of  necessary  faith  and  order,  and  to  be  liable, 
besides,  to  err.  And  hence,  it  is  competent  to  their  succes- 
sors, holding  the  same  official  rank  and  authority,  to  compare 
their  decisions  with  the  written  Word  and  with  ancient  prece- 
dent, and  rectify  the  error.  Whereas  the  Church  of  Rome, 
besides  the  priestly  offices  of  rulers  and  judges  in  the  Church, 
imagines  that  another  doctrine  of  the  faith  was  delivered  to 
them  in  addition  to  that  which  is  contained  in  Scripture;  and 
also  maintains  that  their  judgments  are  absolutely  infalli- 
ble, and  therefore  irreformable;  since  it  is  very  plain  that 
where  no  error  can  possibly  exist,  there  can  be  no  call  for 
reformation. 

You  perceive,  therefore,  my  brethren,  T  trust,  the  truth  of 
what  we  advanced  in  our  introductory  discourse,  that  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States,  are  in  some  respects  midway  between  the 
Church  of  Rome  upon  the  one  hand,  and  many  of  the  secta- 
rian Churches  on  the  other.  And  I  am  not  a  little  solicitous 
that  our  position  might  be  fairly  and  fully  understood,  because 
I  am  thoroughly  persuaded  that  it  occupies  the  only  ground, 
on  which  a  hope  of  general  Christian  unity  amongst  all  Chris- 
tians can  ever  rest. 

But  as  the  case  now  stands,  we  have  at  least  the  comfort  of 
knowing,  that  the  strifes  and  dissensions  of  Christendom  have 
not  been  the  offspring  of  our  principles.  Reverencing  the 
blessed  Bible  as  the  recorded  rule  of  our  faith,  and  paying  all 


40  CONCLUSION. 

due  respect  to  the  primitive  Church  Catholic,  in  whose  author- 
ized judges  we  recognize  the  highest  human  interpreter,  we 
would  lead  all  men  to  the  same  tribunal  of  judgment,  and  give 
to  all  the  same  benefits  of  order,  and  unity,  and  peace.  We 
neither  desire  to  invent  novelties  ourselves,  nor  to  adopt  the 
novelties  of  others,  because  we  value  the  security  and  stability 
of  settled  law,  far  more  than  the  giddy  and  fluctuating  charms 
of  modern  fancy.  And  had  the  other  branches  of  the  Refor- 
mation pursued  the  same  principle — had  they  united  themselves 
together  with  England  on  the  primitive  ground,  and  avoided 
all  the  deplorable  schisms  and  strifes  which  now  distract  the 
ranks  called  Protestant,  I  doubt  whether  the  course  of  the 
glorious  Reformation  would  have  had  any  check  or  stay,  until 
every  abuse  in  Christendom  had  been  abolished,  and  Rome 
herself  had  resumed  the  robe  of  youthful  purity  which  she 
wore,  when  the  apostle  wrote  his  thanks  to  God,  that  "  her 
faith  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world." 


LECTURE  IV 


Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19,  20. — And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them, 
saying,  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and,  lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.     Amen. 

There  are  few  things,  my  beloved  brethren,  more  difficult 
in  the  management  of  a  theological  discussion,  than  to  sim- 
plify the  argument  so  as  to  render  it  at  all  acceptable  to  ordi- 
nary minds,  however  intelligent ;  the  majority  of  whom,  most 
probably,  have  never  reflected  upon  the  subject  before.  And 
this  difficulty  belongs,  more  especially,  to  the  topic  introduced 
in  our  last,  and  continued  in  the  present  lecture ;  namely,  the 
rule  of  faith ;  because,  in  its  nature,  it  is  abstruse  and  unin- 
viting; and  it  is  seldom  that  we  can  hope  to  see  so  close  an 
application  to  a  series  of  discourses  on  a  dry  and  complicated 
point,  as  is  necessary  for  those  who  would  become  familiar 
with  the  whole  chain  of  reasoning  and  evidence  belonging 
to  it. 

Under  such  circumstances,  our  only  reliance  must  be  placed 
upon  the  strength  of  that  religious  sense  of  duty,  which  impels 
every  conscientious  mind  to  search  for  truth,  without  regard 
to  the  unattractive  character  of  the  argument.  But  should 
you,  my  brethren,  belong  to  that  privileged,  though  not  nu- 
merous class,  who  prefer  instruction  to  mere  entertainment,  I 

e2 


42  ROMAN    DOCTRINE 

can  at  least  promise  that  your  interest  will  not  lessen  as  we 
advance;  since  I  feel  perfectly  safe  in  asserting,  that  the  sub- 
ject of  the  present,  and  a  few  of  the  ensuing  lectures,  is  the 
least  inviting  of  the  course,  although,  perhaps,  the  most  im- 
portant to  be  fully  understood. 

You  probably  recollect,  that  our  last  lecture  set  forth  the 
rule  of  faith  professed  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  according  to 
the  statement  of  Dr.  Wiseman,  in  which  he  admitted  that  the 
Scriptures  alone  must  yield  the  proof  of  the  infallibility  claimed 
for  the  doctrines  of  their  Church,  by  virtue  of  which  infalli- 
bility they  assert  an  equal  certainty  of  divine  truth  in  their 
traditions  and  in  the  Bible;  the  one  being,  indeed,  written,  and 
the  other  unwritten;  but  both,  as  they  say,  being  alike  the 
Word  of  God.  The  proofs  alleged  on  behalf  of  the  traditions 
thus  exalted  by  the  Roman  doctrine  to  an  equality  with  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  infallibility  of  their  Church,  form  the  topics  which 
we  promised  to  discuss  in  the  ensuing  lecture.  We  proceed, 
accordingly,  to  consider  the  arguments  which  they  advance  in 
favour  of  tradition,  and  shall  then  take  up  their  doctrine  of  in- 
fallibility. 

They  usually  commence  their  defence  of  tradition  by  show- 
ing, that  the  first  communications  of  divine  truth  were  deli- 
vered orally  to  the  Patriarchs,  beginning  with  Adam;  and 
that  from  his  time  down  to  the  deluge,  the  same  truth  could 
only  have  been  transmitted  by  tradition  from  generation  to 
generation.  And  this  is  undoubtedly  correct ;  but  it  should 
always  be  added,  that  the  result  yields  us  an  awful  proof  of 
the  insufficiency  of  tradition  alone  for  the  preservation  of  re- 
ligion, since  the  whole  race  of  mankind  became  utterly  cor- 
rupt, and  was  destroyed,  in  consequence,  by  a  universal  de- 
luge, which  spared  none  but  Noah  and  his  family.  It  may  be 
said,  indeed,  that  the  knowledge  of  Noah,  at  least,  was  pure; 
and  therefore  that  his  case  demonstrates  the  unalloyed  trans- 
mission of  the  patriarchal  doctrines  through  a  period  of  more 


EXAMINED.  43 

than  two  thousand  years ;  but  this  inference  we  utterly  deny 
for  a  double  reason.  First,  because  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
Noah  had  no  other  basis  for  his  faith  than  that  of  tradition. 
And,  secondly,  because  the  contrary  may  well  be  presumed 
from  the  brief  outline  of  the  sacred  history,  since  it  is  certain 
that  this  eminent  patriarch  had  many  particular  revelations  of 
the  divine  will  vouchsafed  to  him,  some  before  the  flood,  and 
some  after  it.  It  is  surely  unnecessary  for  me  to  prove,  that 
he  to  whom  the  Almighty  condescends  to  commit  his  truth  by 
direct  communication,  must  be  quite  above  the  necessity  of 
depending  upon  human  tradition. 

The  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome  resume  their  argu- 
ment by  telling  us,  that  after  the  flood,  the  truth  was  again 
handed  down  from  Noah  to  Abraham  in  the  same  way ;  thus 
demonstrating  again  the  principle,  that  the  transmission  of  re- 
ligious doctrines  by  oral  tradition  is  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
God.  And  to  this,  likewise,  we  willingly  assent,  if  it  be  added 
— as  it  must  be,  in  accordance  with  the  sacred  history — that 
again,  and  in  the  comparatively  short  period  of  five  hundred 
years,  the  posterity  of  Noah  had  corrupted  their  traditionary 
faith,  and  had  become  worshippers  of  idols:  so  that  the  Lord, 
in  mercy  to  mankind,  raised  up  a  new  man,  Abraham,  to  be 
the  father  of  the  faithful ;  and  sent  him  away  from  his  kindred 
and  his  home,  to  be  a  pilgrim  and  a  stranger  in  the  land  of 
Canaan.  Here,  then,  we  behold  a  second  proof  of  the  small 
dependence  to  be  placed  upon  tradition. 

A  little  further  on,  in  the  record  of  the  Scripture  history, 
we  find  the  sons  of  Jacob,  with  Jacob  himself,  settled  in 
Egypt,  where  their  posterity  increase  and  multiply  for  another 
period  of  four  hundred  years,  the  latter  portion  being  passed 
under  a  bitter  bondage,  from  which  Moses  is  commissioned  to 
deliver  them.  And  how  did  their  traditionary  faith  stand 
during  all  this  time,  notwithstanding  they  had  a  separate  part 
of  the  country,  called  the  land  of  Goshen,  assigned  to  them; 


44  INSUFFICIENCY    OF 

and  were  in  a  great  measure  kept  distinct  from  the  Egyptians, 
as  well  by  the  rite  of  circumcision,  as  by  the  antipathy  of  the 
Egyptians  themselves?  Why  truly,  it  had  become  so  corrupted, 
that  even  after  they  were  delivered  from  bondage,  by  signs 
and  wonders  of  the  most  astonishing  sublimity  and  grandeur, 
they  forced  Aaron  to  make  them  a  golden  calf,  and  danced  and 
shouted  before  the  idol.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  third  proof  of 
the  insecurity  of  tradition. 

But  now  a  new  dispensation  is  ushered  in,  by  the  establish- 
ment of  a  written  record  to  be  the  future  depository  of  religious 
truth.  The  Deity  himself  vouchsafes  to  exemplify  the  impor- 
tant principle,  which  was  henceforth  to  be  the  safeguard  of  the 
faith.  He  pronounces  the  words  of  the  decalogue  from  Mount 
Sinai,  in  the  hearing  of  the  multitude,  and  then  writes  them 
on  two  tables  of  stone.  In  pursuance  of  the  new  decree, 
Moses  records  every  communication  of  the  divine  AVord,  along 
with  every  remarkable  circumstance  in  the  wonderful  history 
of  Israel,  during  the  forty  years  spent  in  the  wilderness;  and 
the  whole  of  his  five  books  are  laid  up  in  the  Ark,  to  be  a 
memorial  for  ever. 

It  is  worthy  of  great  observation,  my  brethren,  that  the 
committing  the  precepts  of  religion,  along  with  the  history  of 
the  Creation,  the  fall,  the  deluge,  and  all  that  had  previously 
taken  place  from  the  beginning,  to  the  written  record  of  the 
Word  of  God,  was  simultaneous  with  the  establishment  of  the 
priesthood,  to  be  the  official  interpreters  and  instructors  of  the 
people.  Before  this,  there  were  priests,  and  there  were  reve- 
lations from  time  to  time.  The  revelations  were  committed  to 
no  one  form  of  preservation,  and  the  priesthood  was  committed 
to  no  one  class,  tribe  or  family.  But  now,  a  new  principle  is 
introduced  in  both  respects.  The  revelations  of  the  Deity  are 
committed  to  writing  by  his  appointed  instrument,  and  the 
sacred  books,  together  with  the  tabernacle,  the  sacrifices,  and 
the  whole  order  of  religion,  are  committed  to  a  peculiar  class 


ORAL    TRADITION.  45 

of  men,  the  priesthood;  whose  office  is  no  longer  to  be  exer- 
cised at  every  man's  pleasure,  but  only  according  to  that  order 
which  the  voice  of  the  Most  High  commands.  We  perceive, 
therefore,  that  the  authority  which  established  the  written 
Word,  and  that  which  established  the  peculiar  priesthood  to  be 
its  guardians,  judges  and  interpreters,  are  one  and  the  same, 
namely,  the  authority  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel. 

But  here  we  meet  with  a  bold  assertion  on  the  part  of  our 
learned  advocate,  Dr.  Wiseman,  and  his  brethren  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  that  "  although  in  the  Mosaic  law,  we  have 
the  characteristics  of  a  written  code,  and  although  we  have 
an  express  injunction  to  note  down  whatever  was  to  be  taught, 
yet  there  is  no  doubt  whatever,"  saith  our  author,  "  that  by 
far  the  most  important  doctrines  were  not  committed  to  writing; 
that  among  the  Jews  there  was  a  train  of  sacred  tradition, 
containing  within  itself  more  vital  dogmas  than  are  written  in 
the  inspired  volume." — "  The  few,"  continues  Dr.  Wiseman, 
"  who  take  the  requisite  pains  to  trace  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews 
in  this  regard,  will  find,  that  from  the  very  beginning,  from 
the  delivery  of  the  law  to  Moses,  there  was  a  great  mass  of 
precepts,  not  written,  but  committed  to  the  keeping  of  the 
priesthood,  and  by  them  gradually  communicated  or  diffused 
among  the  people,  but  yet  hardly  alluded  to  in  the  writings  of 
the  Sacred  Books."  This  statement,  it  must  be  confessed,  is 
somewhat  startling ;  and  since  the  learned  advocate  of  tradi- 
tion undertakes  to  give  examples  in  proof  of  its  truth,  we  are 
bound  in  justice  to  examine  them. 

His  first  reference  is  to  the  work  of  the  celebrated  Warbur- 
ton,  who,  in  his  learned  treatise  called  "The  Divine  Lega- 
tion," maintained  that  there  was  no  sufficient  evidence  in  the 
books  of  Moses,  or  of  the  earlier  Jews,  either  of  the  soul's 
immortality,  or  of  a  future  state.  Now  it  is  very  true  that 
Warburton  maintained  this  notion,  and  it  is  equally  true,  as 
Dr.  Wiseman  takes  care  to  inform  his  readers,  that  Warbur- 


46  THE    SCRIPTURES 

ton  was  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England ;  but  he  forgot  to 
add,  that  the  hypothesis  of  the  bishop  was  universally  dis- 
owned, that  it  was  censured  by  his  brethren  at  the  time,  and 
has  ever  since  been  regarded,  in  his  own  Church,  as  one  of 
those  wild  and  dangerous  fancies,  which  intellectual  men  are 
sometimes  permitted  to  indulge,  in  order  perhaps  to  show  how 
little  confidence  can  be  reposed  in  human  genius,  when  it 
becomes  an  admirer  of  its  own  powers. 

Our  author,  after  laying  the  foundation  of  his  argument  in 
the  exploded  notion  of  Warburton,  proceeds  to  state,  what  no 
one  will  deny,  that  the  Pharisees  in  our  Saviour's  days, 
believed  these  doctrines  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  body ;  and  hence  he  draws  the  strange 
conclusion,  that  neither  of  these  doctrines  are  recorded  in  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  having  only  been  handed  down  by 
tradition  delivered  to  the  Priesthood.  But  had  Dr.  Wise- 
man forgotten  the  speech  of  the  prophet  Balaam,  "  Let  me  die 
the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his?"  Or 
the  declaration  of  King  David,  "  As  the  hart  panteth  after  the 
water  brooks,  so  longeth  my  soul  after  thee,  O  God."—"  When 
I  awake  up  after  thy  likeness,  I  shall  be  satisfied."  Or  the 
prophet  Isaiah,  (xxvi.  19)  where  he  expressly  saith,  "  Thy  dead 
men  shall  live,  together  with  my  dead  body  shall  they  arise. 
Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  dust,  for  thy  dew  is  as  the 
dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  the  dead?"  Had  he 
forgotten  that  most  remarkable  vision  of  the  valley  of  dry 
bones,  recorded  in  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel,  (ch.  xxxvii.)  where 
we  read:  "Thus  saith  the  Lord  God;  Behold,  O  my  people,  I 
will  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of  your 
graves,  and  bring  you  into  the  land  of  Israel?"  Or  the  prophe- 
cy of  Daniel,  (ch.  xii.  2)  declaring,  "Many  of  them  that  sleep 
in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life, 
and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And  they  that 
be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament,  and 


MISREPRESENTED.  47 

they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  for  ever  and 
ever?"  Surely  some  strange  hallucination  must  be  upon  the 
minds  of  such  reasoners,  as  would  endeavour,  with  passages 
like  these  before  their  eyes,  to  deny  that  the  doctrine  of  a  fu- 
ture immortality  is  contained  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  still 
more  does  it  astonish  us  to  see  them  distorting  the  testimony 
of  our  blessed  Lord  himself,  when  he  showed  the  Sadducees 
their  error  with  regard  to  the  resurrection ;  (Mat.  xxii.  29,  &c.) 
"  Ye  do  err,"  saith  the  divine  Teacher,  "  not  knowing  the 
Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God."  Nothing  can  be  more 
hostile  to  Dr.  Wiseman's  theory  than  this ;  for  the  Sadducees 
could  not  err  by  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  in  regard  to  a 
doctrine  which  was  not  contained  in  Scripture,  but  only  handed 
down  by  tradition.  "  But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,"  continues  our  blessed  Redeemer,  "  have  ye  not  read  that 
which  was  spoken  unto  you  by  God,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob?  God 
is  not  the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living."  Here  then  is  the 
most  direct  appeal  for  this  very  doctrine  to  the  books  of  Moses, 
by  Jesus  Christ  himself;  and  yet  the  advocates  of  Roman  tra- 
dition would  persuade  us  that  the  doctrine  cannot  be  found 
there ! 

The  next  example  of  a  reference  to  oral  tradition,  as  Dr. 
Wiseman  chooses  to  call  it,  occurs  in  the  24th  Chapter  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke.  "  Our  Saviour,"  saith  this 
author,  (p.  62)  "  tells  us  that  Moses  bore  testimony  of  him  ; 
and  in  conversing  with  his  two  disciples  on  the  road  to  Em- 
maus,  quoted  the  authority  of  Moses  for  the  necessity  of  his 
suffering,  and  so  entering  into  his  glory.  And  yet  you  will  in 
vain  search  the  books  of  Moses  to  discover  this  important  dog- 
ma of  the  necessity  of  the  Messiah's  dying  to  redeem  his  people. 
Where  then,"  asks  Dr.  Wiseman,  "  had  these  points  been  pre- 
served, save  in  the  traditions  of  the  Jews?" 

Now  here  is  truly  a  strange  mystification  of  the  testimony 


48  THE    SCRIPTURES 

of  Scripture.  The  passage  itself  is  as  follows,  and  I  quote  it 
in  full ;  in  order  to  show  a  specimen  of  the  kind  of  argument 
which,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  occurs  but  too  frequently  amongst 
writers  on  the  Roman  side  of  this  question. 

"O  fools,"  said  our  Lord  to  the  two  disciples  on  the  road  to 
Emmaus,  (Lu.  xxiv.  25)  "  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that 
the  prophets  have  spoken !  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered 
these  things  and  to  enter  into  his  glory  ?  And  beginning  at 
Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the 
Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself." 

Mark  here,  my  brethren,  I  beseech  you,  a  threefold  error  on 
the  part  of  the  Roman  advocate.  For,  in  the  first  place,  Dr. 
Wiseman  confines  our  Lord's  quotation  to  the  books  of  Moses, 
whereas  St.  Luke  saith,  that  the  Saviour  referred  to  all  the 
prophets,  "and  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he  ex- 
pounded unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself." 

Secondly,  Dr.  Wiseman  asserts,  that  we  should  in  vain  search 
the  books  of  Moses  to  discover  the  important  dogma  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  Messiah's  dying  to  redeem  his  people.  Whereas, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  first  promise  of  the  Seed  of  the  woman, 
nor  of  the  representation  of  the  mystery  of  redemption  under 
the  command  given  to  Abraham  to  slay  his  only  son,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  St.  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  argues  the 
whole  subject  of  the  atonement  from  the  priesthood  of  Mel- 
chisedec,  the  tabernacle  service,  the  office  of  the  high  priest, 
and  the  great  principle  of  the  Levitical  law,  that  without  shed- 
ding of  blood  there  could  be  no  remission  of  iniquity,  while  yet 
it  was  evident  that  the  blood  of  hulls  and  goats  could  never 
take  away  sins.  So  that  even  if  our  Lord,  in  illustrating  the 
subject  to  the  disciples  on  the  road  to  Emmaus,  had  confined 
himself  to  the  books  of  Moses,  it  would  be  perfectly  erroneous 
to  say,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  death  for  his  people  could 
not  be  found  there,  in  the  most  expressive  types  and  allegories. 


MISREPRESENTED.  49 

And  thirdly,  Dr.  Wiseman  asks  the  question,  as  if  in  tri- 
umph, "  Where  had  these  points  been  preserved,  save  in  the 
traditions  of  the  Jews?"  whereas  St.  Luke  expressly  declares, 
that  our  Saviour,  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  ex- 
pounded unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures,  the  things  concern- 
ing himself.  I  must  honestly  confess  my  astonishment  at  this 
palpable  misrepresentation;  for  it  is  plainly  impossible  that  our 
Lord's  expounding  to  his  disciples  in  all  the  Scriptures  the 
things  concerning  himself,  should  mean,  that  he  explained  what 
was  not  in  the  Scriptures  at  all,  but  only  in  the  doctrines  of 
tradition ! 

There  is  yet  one  instance  more,  however,  which  our  learned 
advocate  brings  forward  as  a  proof  in  behalf  of  his  favourite 
tradition.  The  passage  is  as  follows;  "When  our  Saviour," 
saith  he,  (ib.)  "proposed  to  Nicodemus  the  doctrine  of  a  spirit- 
ual birth,  and  he  truly  or  affectedly  understood  it  not,  he  re- 
proved him  in  these  words:  Art  thou  a  Master  in  Israel,  and 
knowest  not  these  things?  What  does  this  rebuke  imply," 
continues  Dr.  Wiseman,  "but  that  a  teacher  among  the  Jews 
ought  to  have  been  acquainted  with  this  important  doctrine, 
from  his  very  office  as  a  teacher  ?  Yet  tell  me  where  it  is  ever 
taught  in  the  old  law,  or  whence  could  he  have  possessed  it, 
except  among  the  traditional  lore  preserved  among  the  priests 
and  learned?" 

Now  truly  this  is  marvellous,  for  the  doctrine  of  this  very 
birth  of  water  and  the  Spirit  is  set  forth  with  more  or  less  plain- 
ness in  many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  Let  the  prophecy 
of  Ezekiel  suffice  ;  (xxxvi.  25,  &c.)  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  (saith  the  Lord)  and  ye  shall  be  clean : 
from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse 
you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will 
I  put  within  you,  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of 
your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will 
put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes, 

F 


50  THE   SCRIPTURES 

and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and  do  them."  Here  we 
have  all  the  elements  of  Christian  regeneration  in  the  clearest 
terms.  The  sprinkling  with  clean  water,  the  cleansing  from 
sin,  the  giving  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit,  the  putting  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God  within  us,  so  that  the  old  nature,  called  the 
heart  of  stone,  shall  be  changed  into  the  new  nature,  called  the 
heart  of  flesh,  and  our  will  shall  thenceforth  be  to  keep  the 
ways  of  the  Lord, — what  more  just  and  comprehensive  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine  held  forth  to  Nicodemus  could  be  devised, 
than  is  contained  in  this  passage  of  the  prophet,  with  which  every 
master  in  Israel  was  bound  to  be  familiar  ?  It  seems,  however, 
that  we  have  to  this  day  masters  in  Israel,  that  cannot  find  the 
doctrine  in  the  Old  Testament  any  more  than  Nicodemus,  and 
therefore  would  have  us  believe  that  it  was  taught  by  tradition. 
And  yet  I  do  not  see  how  that  would  lessen  their  difficulty, 
since  it  is  plain  that  Nicodemus  knew  as  little  of  this  imaginary 
tradition,  as  he  did  of  the  Scripture  itself. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  cases  cited  by  Dr.  Wiseman, 
let  us  turn  to  a  part  of  our  blessed  Redeemer's  instructions,  in 
which  he  does  refer  to  the  Jewish  traditions  plainly  ;  but  not  in 
a  manner  which  is  at  all  reconcilable  to  the  Roman  hypothesis. 
The  whole  narrative  is  in  the  7th  Chapter  of  St.  Mark's  Gos- 
pel, and  I  shall  quote  it  in  full. 

"  Then  came  together  unto  him  the  Pharisees,  and  certain  of 
the  Scribes  which  came  from  Jerusalem.  And  when  they  saw 
some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled,  that  is  to  say,  with 
unwashen  hands,  they  found  fault.  For  the  Pharisees  and  all 
the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not ;  holding 
the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not.  And  many  other 
things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  wash- 
ing of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables.  Then  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes  asked  him,  Why  walk  not  thy  disciples 
accordinsr  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  but  eat  bread  with  un- 


MISREPRESENTED.  51 

washen  hands?  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Well  hath 
Esaias  prophesied  of  you,  hypocrites,  as  it  is  written,  This 
people  honoureth  me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far  from 
me.  Howbeit  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doc- 
trines the  commandments  of  men.  For  laying  aside  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  ye  hold  the  tradition  of  men,  as  the  washing 
of  pots  and  cups :  and  many  other  such  like  things  ye  do. 
And  he  said  unto  them.  Full  well  ye  reject  the  commandment 
of  God,  that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tradition.  For  Moses  said, 
Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  and  whoso  curseth  father  or 
mother,  let  him  die  the  death :  But  ye  say.  If  a  man  shall  say 
to  his  father  or  mother.  It  is  Corban,  that  is  to  say,  a  gift,  by 
whatsoever  thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me,  he  shall  be  free. 
And  ye  suffer  him  no  more  to  do  aught  for  his  father  or  his 
mother ;  making  the  Word  of  God  of  none  effect  through 
your  tradition,  which  ye  have  delivered :  and  many  such  like 
things  do  ye." 

Now  here,  as  well  as  in  many  other  places  of  the  Gospels, 
where  the  traditions  of  the  Jews  are  spoken  of  by  our  Lord,  it 
is  with  strong  reprehension ;  clearly  proving  to  us,  that  even 
after  they  had  the  written  standard  of  divine  truth  establish- 
ed before  them,  there  was  the  same  tendency  of  the  human 
heart  to  corrupt  the  Word  of  God,  and  substitute  in  its  stead, 
the  weak  and  delusive  maxims  of  the  natural  understanding. 
But  nowhere  does  the  Saviour  mention  their  traditions  with 
approbation ;  nowhere  does  he  intimate,  that  there  was  any 
doctrinal  truth  delivered  by  Moses  to  the  priesthood,  distinct 
from  the  written  Word  of  God  :  and  therefore  we  cannot  hesi- 
tate to  say,  that  the  whole  of  the  hypothesis  framed  by  the 
advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  order  to  sustain  the  co- 
ordinate authority  of  their  traditions,  appears  thus  far  totally 
unsupported  by  any  thing  that  we  can  recognize,  as  worthy  of 
the  slightest  respect  or  consideration. 

2.  We  have  now,  brethren,  examiined  the  subject  of  tradi- 


52  INFALLIBILITY. 

tion,  as  it  is  presented  in  the  sacred  history  up  to  the  period  of 
our  Lord's  offering  himself  for  his  Church;  where  we  must 
leave  it  for  the  present,  although  it  will  recur,  under  another 
form,  in  a  subsequent  lecture. 

We  come  next  to  consider  the  main  question,  on  which  all 
the  rest  depend,  namely,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church's  infallibil- 
ity. For  you  must  bear  it  in  mind,  that  the  principal  reliance 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  on  this  assumption.  If  Scripture 
proves  that  the  Church  is  infallible,  then  it  is  of  small  impor- 
tance whether  the  particular  traditions  which  she  teaches  be 
found  in  Scripture  or  not,  because  this  attribute  of  infallibility 
cures  all  other  defects,  and  makes  the  authority  of  the  Church 
equal  to  the  authority  of  Scripture.  Now  the  passage  which 
Dr.  Wiseman  and  his  brethren  consider  conclusive  on  this 
point,  is  the  same  which  we  have  selected  for  our  text,  being 
the  address  made  by  our  blessed  Lord  to  his  apostles  after  his 
resurrection,  and  just  before  his  ascension  into  heaven,  as  re- 
corded at  the  close  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel :  "  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  ob- 
serve all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  vnto  the  end  of  the  world.''''  "Here," 
according  to  our  author,  (p.  83,)  "  a  promise  is  clearly  given 
by  our  blessed  Redeemer,  that  he  would  assist  his  Church  even 
to  the  end  of  time,  so  as  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  her  fall- 
ing into  error,  or  allowing  any  admixture  thereof  with  the 
truths  committed  to  her  charge." 

We  have  no  dispute  with  the  Church  of  Rome  upon  the 
question,  whether  this  promise  was  designed  to  embrace  the 
successors  of  the  apostles  to  the  end  of  time ;  for  such  we 
think  is  its  fair  and  obvious  meaning.  Neither  have  we  any 
hesitation  in  saying,  that  it  is  a  most  precious  security  for  the 
general  success,  the  perpetuity,  and  final  victory  of  the  Church 


INFALLIBILITY.  53 

over  every  opponent.  But  we  utterly  deny  that  it  pledges  to 
the  Church  an  absolute  infallibility,  or  perfect  freedom  from 
error.  This  is  the  fundamental  question  of  the  controversy, 
by  the  decision  of  which  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  so  far  as  it  varies  from  or  adds  to  the  doctrine  of  Scrip- 
ture, must  stand  or  fall.  The  text  asserts  that  Christ  will  be 
present  with  his  Church;  that  is  undeniable.  The  inquiry 
then  must  be,  whether  this  presence  of  Christ  was  designed  to 
warrant  the  Church's  infallibility.  The  negative,  we  think, 
will  be  clearly  proved,  if  we  consider  the  import  of  the  pro- 
mise according  to  the  hght  of  Scripture;  and  this  we  shall 
endeavour  to  do  in  four  different  aspects;  first,  with  regard  to 
individuals;  secondly,  with  regard  to  ancient  Israel ;  thirdly, 
with  regard  to  the  apostles ;  and  fourthly,  with  regard  to  the 
Christian  Churches  even  of  the  apostolic  day. 

And  here,  I  am  happy  to  assert  the  concurrence  of  Dr. 
Wiseman  himself,  in  the  only  sound  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion. "  On  examining  the  practice  of  Scripture,"  saith  he, 
(p.  87,)  "  we  find  that  wherever  God  gives  a  commission  of 
peculiar  difficulty,  and  one  which,  to  those  that  receive  it,  ap- 
pears almost,  or  indeed  entirely  beyond  the  power  of  man,  the 
way  in  which  he  assures  them  that  it  can  and  will  be  fulfilled, 
is  by  adding  to  the  end  of  the  commission,  /  will  he  with 
you.  As  if  he  should  thereby  say,  The  success  of  your 
commission  is  quite  secure,  because  I  will  give  my  special 
assistance  for  its  perfect  fulfilment."  Now  if  we  apply  this 
principle  of  Dr.  Wiseman's  own  stating  to  the  various  in- 
stances in  which  such  a  promise  occurs,  we  shall  be  satisfied, 
that  in  none  of  them  does  it  involve  a  security  against  error, 
or  a  teaching  and  believing  only  what  is  infallibly  true. 

First  then,  as  to  the  cases  of  individuals,  we  meet  with  manv 
examples  of  this  promise.  Thus,  (Exod.  iii.  12)  when  Moses, 
alarmed  at  the  difficulty  of  the  enterprise  which  he  was  com- 
manded to  undertake,,  saith  unto  God,  "Who  am  I,  that  I 

f2 


54  THE   DlviJfE   PRESENCE 

should  go  unto  Pharaoh,  and  that  I  should  bring  forth  the 
children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt :"  the  answer  is,  "  Certainly 
/  will  be  with  thee.''''  And  again,  (Exod.  iv.  15)  we  read 
that  the  Lord  said  to  him,  "  Is  not  Aaron  the  Levite  thy  bro- 
ther ?  I  know  that  he  can  speak  well.  And  also  he  cometh 
forth  to  meet  thee.  And  I  will  he  with  thy  movth  and  with 
his  mouth,  and  will  teach  you  what  ye  shall  do."  Here  we 
have  an  express  promise  of  the  presence  of  God  with  Moses 
and  Aaron,  and  with  their  mouths  to  teach  them.  And  yet, 
who  ever  supposed  that  this  made  them  incapable  of  speaking 
or  of  acting  erroneously  ?  Substantially  and  completely  was 
the  promise  of  the  Lord  fulfilled,  for  he  was  with  them,  and 
with  their  mouth,  and  spake  through  them  to  his  people  Israel. 
But  he  had  not  promised  that  they  should  never  be  permitted 
to  speak  their  own  words,  and  indulge  their  own  infirmities ; 
and  therefore  we  find  Moses  often  murmuring  and  complaining, 
and  carrying  his  unadvised  language  so  far,  on  one  occasion, 
that  the  Lord  would  not  allow  him  to  enter  the  promised  land, 
as  a  memorial  of  his  sin.  So  Aaron  not  only  yielded  to  the 
idolatrous  folly  of  the  people  in  making  the  golden  calf,  but 
afterwards  united  with  Miriam  in  assaulting  the  authority  of 
his  brother.  Plainly,  therefore,  the  promise  of  God  to  be  with 
these  two  most  eminent  men,  and  with  their  mouth  to  teach 
them,  was  not  intended  to  confer  upon  them  any  infallible 
preservative  from  error,  either  in  speech  or  in  conduct.  It 
only  applied  to  those  occasions  in  which  they  were  the  ap- 
pointed organs  of  God  ;  speaking  the  immediate  revelations  of 
his  word,  and  acting  by  his  direct  and  express  authority. 

We  find  another,  and  an  inestimable  promise  of  God's  pre- 
sence, made  to  the  individual  believer,  where  St.  Paul,  (Heb. 
xiii.  5)  saith,  "Let  your  conversation  be  without  covetousness, 
and  be  content  with  such  things  as  ye  have;  for  he  hath  said, 
/  will  never  leave  thee  nor  forsake  thee:  so  that  we  may  boldly 
say,  The  Lord  is  my  helper,  and  I  will  not  fear  what  man 


GIVES    NO    INFALLIBILITY.  65 

shall  do  unto  me."  But  nothing  of  this  description  can  exceed 
the  beautiful  language  of  Christ  himself,  in  St.  John's  Gospel; 
(ch.  xvii.  20,  21)  where  he  saith,  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these 
alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through 
their  word.  That  they  may  all  be  one :  as  thou  Father  art 
in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us. — I  in 
THEM,  AND  THOU  IN  ME,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in 
one ;  and  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me, 
and  hast  loved  them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me."  No  promise  of 
the  divine  presence  can  be  more  express  than  this,  yet  who 
ever  supposed  that  it  conferred  infallibility  on  every  individual 
believer  1  &. 

In  the  second  place,  we  are  to  consider  the  operation  of  the 
presence  of  God  in  the  case  of  ancient  Israel.  Thus,  in  the 
book  of  Genesis,  the  patriarch  Jacob  on  his  death  bed  saith, 
(ch.  xlviii.  21)  "Behold  I  die,  but  God  shall  be  with  you.'''' 
Again,  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  in  reference  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  tabernacle,  the  Almighty  saith,  (ch.  xxix.  45)  "  1 
will  dwell  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  will  be  their 
God."  Again,  in  Leviticus,  (xxvi.  44)  the  Lord  saith,  "  I  will 
not  cast  them  away,  neither  will  I  abhor  them  to  destroy  them 
utterly  and  to  break  my  covenant  with  them,  for  I  am  the 
Lord  their  God."  Again,  in  Deuteronomy,  (ch.  iv.  31.)  "  The 
Lord  thy  God  is  a  merciful  God,  he  will  not  forsake  thee." 
And  again,  in  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  (ch.  xli.  8.  10)  "Thou, 
Israel,  art  my  servant,  Jacob  whom  I  have  chosen,  the  seed  of 
Abraham  my  friend.  Fear  thou  not,  for  1  am  with  thee ;  be 
not  dismayed,  for  I  am  thy  God:  I  will  strengthen  thee;  yea, 
I  will  help  thee ;  yea,  I  will  uphold  thee  with  the  right  hand 
of  my  righteousness."  Now  it  is  impossible  to  imagine 
stronger  language  than  this,  to  assure  Israel  of  the  divine 
presence.  Nay,  they  had  the  visible  manifestation  of  the  fact, 
in  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  and  of  the  fire,  and  in  the  glory,  or 
SHECHINAH,  which  filled  the  most  holy  place  of  their  taberna- 


56  THE    APOSTLES    FALLIBLE. 

cle,  and  afterwards  the  corresponding  part  of  Solomon's  tem- 
ple. Besides  which,  the  priesthood  had  the  power  of  con- 
sulting God,  and  obtaining  direct  answers  to  any  question  of 
high  importance  to  their  Church  or  nation ;  and  yet,  who  be- 
lieves that  they  were  infallible  ?  The  successors  of  that  priest- 
hood were  the  men  whom  the  Redeemer  charged  with  making 
void  the  law  of  God  by  their  traditions.  Yea,  the  same  high- 
priest,  who  was  enabled  to  utter  a  prophecy  concerning  the 
death  of  Christ,  (Jo.  xi.  49)  is  also  recorded  to  have  charged 
our  blessed.  Saviour  with  blasphemy,  because  he  called  himself 
the  Son  of  God.  Clearly  then,  the  divine  presence,  glorious 
as  the  privilege  was,  conferred  no  infallibility  on  Israel. 

3.  We  have,  in  the  third  place,  to  consider  the  effect  of  the 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  case  of  the  apostles.  And  here  it  is 
obvious  to  remark,  that  our  Lord  was  actually  and  bodily  with 
them,  for  several  years.  They  were  his  chosen  companions  by 
night  and  by  day.  He  gave  them  power  over  unclean  spirits 
and  to  heal  diseases.  He  sent  them  forth  to  preach  the  king- 
dom of  God;  he  taught  them,  and  called  them  his  friends  and 
brethren;  but  did  this,  his  gracious  presence,  and  favour,  and 
instruction,  make  them  infallible?  So  far  from  it,  that  we 
find  them  disputing  who  should  be  the  greatest;  for  which  they 
were  reproved.  Again,  they  rebuke  those  that  brought  the 
infants,  whereat  their  blessed  Master  was  "  much  displeased." 
Again,  they  ask,  whether  they  should  call  down  fire  from  hea- 
ven to  consume  those  who  refused  to  give  them  hospitality  on 
the  way  to  Jerusalem,  and  their  Lord  replies,  "  ye  know  not 
what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of."  Again,  they  desire  to  for- 
bid one  that  cast  out  devils  in  their  Master's  name,  because  he 
followed  not  with  them;  on  which  occasion  Christ  said,  "  for- 
bid him  not."  Lastly,  they  all  forsake  him  in  the  night 
wherein  he  was  betrayed,  and  Peter  denies  him  before  morn- 
ing. These  facts  show  us,  distinctly,  that  even  in  the  case  of 
the  apostles,  the  presence  of  Christ  was  not  intended  to  confer 


THE    CHURCHES    FALLIBLE.  57 

infallibility.  And  the  argument  stands  thus:  the  Saviour 
passed  three  years  with  his  apostles  during  his  earthly  minis- 
try ;  and  after  his  resurrection,  and  before  his  ascension,  he 
promised  to  be  with  them  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
But  if  his  being  with  them,  during  the  first,  did  not  make  them 
infallible,  his  being  with  them  during  the  second,  does  not  make 
them  infallible;  so  that  we  have  here  the  clearest  demonstra- 
tion, that  whatever  infallibility  we  allow  to  the  instructions  of 
the  apostles,  was  not  the  result,  simply,  of  the  presence  of 
their  Lord,  but  belonged  to  a  totally  distinct  matter,  viz :  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  them  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, according  to  the  tenor  of  the  Saviour's  command ;  "  Tarry 
in  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high." 
It  was  this  inspiration  that  stamped  infallibility  upon  the  doc- 
trines of  the  apostles,  so  that  their  writings  are  received  as  the 
Word  of  God,  and  not  the  word  of  men.  But  this  has  no 
relation  to  the  promise  of  the  text.  Inspiration  is  one  thing, 
and  the  presence  of  Christ  is  another. 

Lastly,  we  were  to  consider  the  fact,  that  the  Churches  of 
Christ,  even  during  the  apostolic  day,  were  not  infallible;  and 
this  we  learn  with  the  clearest  evidence,  from  the  Book  of 
Revelation.  There  we  behold  the  glorious  Redeemer  repre- 
sented as  walking  in  the  midst  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks, 
which  are  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia,  presided  over  by  their 
respective  angels  or  bishops.  And  the  apostle  John  receives 
the  command  to  write  to  each,  a  solemn  message  of  admoni- 
tion. From  these  I  shall  proceed  to  make  a  kv^  quotations. 
"  To  the  angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  write;  These  things 
saith  he,  that  holdeth  the  seven  stars  in  his  right  hand,  who 
walketh  in  the  midst  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks.  I  know 
thy  works,  and  thy  labour,  and  thy  patience,  and  how  thou 
canst  not  bear  them  that  are  evil ;  and  thou  hast  tried  them 
which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them 
liai's.     Nevertheless  I  have  somewhat  against  thee,  because 


58 


THE   CHURCHES   FALLIBLE. 


thou  hast  left  thy  first  love.  Remember,  therefore,  from 
whence  thou  art  fallen,  and  repent,  and  do  the  first  works;  or 
else  I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly,  and  will  remove  thy  candle- 
stick out  of  his  place,  except  thou  repent." 

"And  to  the  angel  of  the  Church  in  Pergamos  write;  These 
things  saith  he,  which  hath  the  sharp  sword  with  two  edges: 
I  know  thy  works  and  where  thou  dwellest,  even  where  Satan's 
seat  is;  and  thou  holdest  fast  my  name,  and  hast  not  denied 
my  faith.  .  . .  But  I  have  a  i^ew  things  against  thee,  because  thou 
hast  there  them  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,  who  taught 
Balac  to  cast  a  stumbling  block  before  the  children  of  Israel. 
So  hast  thou  also  them  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolai- 
tans,  which  thing  I  hate.  Repent,  or  else  I  will  come  unto 
thee  quickly,  and  fight  against  them  with  the  sword  of  my 
mouth." 

"  And  unto  the  angel  of  the  Church  in  Thyatira,  write  ; 
These  things  saith  the  Son  of  God,  I  know  thy  works,  and 
charity,  and  service,  and  faith,  and  thy  patience,  and  thy 
works.  Notwithstanding  I  have  a  few  things  aojainst  thee, 
because  thou  sufTerest  that  woman  Jezebel,  which  calleth  her- 
self a  prophetess,  to  teach  and  to  seduce  my  servants  to  com- 
mit  fornication,  and  to  eat  things  sacrificed  unto  idols.  But 
unto  you  I  say,  and  unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira,  as  many  as 
have  not  this  doctrine,  and  which  have  not  known  the  depths 
of  Satan  as  they  speak,  I  will  put  upon  you  none  other  burden. 
He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto 
the  Churches." 

The  greater  part  of  these  solemn  addresses,  brethren,  are  in 
a  similar  strain;  all  shewing,  that  although  the  Lord  was  pre- 
sent with  them,  walking  in  the  midst  of  these  Churches,  yet 
more  or  less  error,  some  practical,  some  doctrinal, — yea,  the 
depths  of  Satan, — were  found  amongst  them;  a  plain  evidence 
that  his  presence  with  his  Church  in  this  imperfect  state  did 
not  confer  infallibility.     We  shall  have  occasion,  in  a  future 


MEANING    OF    THE    PROMISE.  59 

discourse,  to  show  you  many  more  awful  proofs  of  the  same 
truth,  when  we  come  to  examine  the  history  of  the  Councils, 
and  the  claims  of  papal  supremacy.  But  so  far  as  we  have 
gone,  and  judging  on  Scriptural  grounds,  nothing  seems  neces- 
sary to  be  added  to  the  proof,  that  the  language  of  the  text 
yields  no  support  to  the  Roman  doctrine. 

Having  thus,  as  I  trust,  established  the  negative,  I  shall  de- 
tain you  but  a  few  moments  in  showing  the  positive  sense  of 
the  promise,  that  Christ  would  be  with  the  apostles  and  their 
successors  to  the  end  of  the  world.  And  here,  we  have  only 
to  apply  the  rule  of  interpretation  furnished  by  Dr.  Wiseman 
himself.  "Wherever,"  saith  he,  "God  gives  a  commission 
of  peculiar  difficulty,  and  one  which  to  those  that  receive  it 
appears  almost,  or  indeed  entirely,  beyond  the  power  of  man, 
the  way  in  which  he  assures  them  that  it  will  be  fulfilled,  is 
by  adding  to  the  end  of  the  commission,  I  will  be  with  you." 
Now  this  furnishes  the  simple  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  pro- 
mise in  the  text.  Christ  was  with  the  apostles,  in  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  signs,  and  miracles,  and  supernatural 
strength,  and  the  truth  which  flows  from  immediate  inspira- 
tion. Of  these,  miracles  and  signs  were  necessary  to  the  ful- 
filment of  their  peculiar  part  of  the  commission,  to  plant  the 
Gospel  in  the  face  of  persecution,  and  danger,  and  death;  and 
inspiration  was  necessary  to  enable  them  to  complete  the  writ- 
ten record  of  the  Word  of  God,  to  be  a  standard  of  faith  to  all 
future  ages.  And  Christ  has  been  with  their  successors  ever 
since,  though  not  with  tongues,  nor  in  miracles,  nor  in  inspira- 
tion, but  in  the  secret  succours  of  his  grace,  and  the  guiding 
hand  of  his  providence,  carrying  forward  the  mighty  purposes 
of  his  divine  mission,  in  despite  of  all  opposition,  and  in  the 
midst  of  every  difficulty,  to  the  day  of  the  final  victory.  Nor 
is  the  gracious  assurance  confined  to  the  apostles  and  their 
successors.  For  Christ  is  as  truly  present  at  this  moment 
with  every  heart,  which  humbly  and  faithfully  seeks  to  know 


^  CONCLUSION. 

and  serve  him;  he  will  never  leave  them  or  forsake  them;  he 
will  accomplish  all  his  merciful  designs  in  them  on  earth,  and 
he  will  bring  them  at  last  to  his  heritage  of  glory.  But  all 
this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  which  Christ  never  promised,  and  therefore  could 
not  be  expected  to  bestow.  He  did  not  say  that  his  Church 
should  never  err  in  doctrine,  but  on  the  contrary  warns  and 
admonishes  them,  lest  they  should  fall  into  error.  We  may  not 
trespass  upon  you,  however,  by  entering  now  upon  this  branch 
of  the  argument,  but  shall  reserve  it,  along  with  the  other  texts 
alleged  by  our  Roman  brethren,  for  the  next  lecture. 

But  we  may  not  conclude,  without  an  expression  of  devout 
gratitude  to  God,  that  the  presence  of  Christ  is  promised  and 
granted,  where  there  is  no  claim  to  infallibility.  For  if  it  were 
otherwise,  my  beloved  brethren,  what  hope  could  we  cherish  of 
the  presence  of  the  Saviour  with  any  soul?  If  our  compas- 
sionate Redeemer  dwells  with  no  intellect  that  is  fallible — in 
no  heart  that  is  not  liable  to  err — where  could  be  his  abode 
amongst  us?  Alas!  nowhere.  Nay,  on  such  a  theory,  the 
presence  of  God  might  be  denied  even  to  the  celestial  hier- 
archy; for  we  know  from  the  express  authority  of  his  own 
Word,  that  the  very  heavens  are  not  clean  in  his  sight,  and 
that  he  chargeth  his  angels  with  folly  before  him. 

Be  ours,  then,  the  humble  and  the  watchful  spirit,  which  be- 
comes those  who  are  exhorted  to  work  cut  their  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling.  Let  us  respect  the  judgment  of  the  primi- 
tive saints  who  followed  next  in  the  track  of  the  apostles,  but 
let  us  allow  of  no  infallibility  except  what  flows  from  direct 
inspiration,  and  is  alone  recorded  in  the  written  Word  of  the 
unerring,  the  omniscient,  the  eternal  God.  And  thus,  my  be- 
loved brethren,  even  while  following  the  course  of  a  perplexed 
and  tedious  controversy,  we  shall  be  enabled  to  shun  the  folly 
of  dogmatism,  and  the  pride  of  opinion.  With  the  love  of 
truth  for  our  motive,  with  the  Holy  Scripture  for  our  guide, 


CONCLUSION.  61 

with  the  temper  of  charity  for  our  constant  companion — may 
each  successive  step  of  our  investigation  serve  to  strengthen 
our  convictions,  to  increase  our  thankfulness,  and  to  give  fer- 
vour to  our  prayers,  that  all  who  profess  and  call  themselves 
Christians  may  hold  the  faith,  in  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  bond  of  peace. 


LECTURE  V. 


2  Thes.  ii.  15. — Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  tradi- 
lions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle. 


You  are  invited  once  more,  beloved  brethren,  to  resume  the 
examination  of  the  principles  of  that  Church,  which  claims  to 
herself  the  prerogative  of  infallibility,  and  places  her  traditions 
upon  an  equality  with  the  blessed  Word  of  God.  We  have 
seen,  already,  some  specimens  of  the  skill  and  subtilty,  with 
which  her  advocates  defend  her  pretensions;  and  we  shall 
have  abundant  occasion  to  admire  their  ingenuity,  while  we 
lament  its  misapplication,  before  our  labours  are  closed.  Re- 
garding the  Church  of  Rome,  as  I  regard  every  Church  in 
Christendom,  with  kindliness  and  esteem  for  the  Redeemer's 
sake,  and  anxiously  desirous  to  conduct  even  the  work  of 
controversy  so  as  to  subserve  the  great  cause  of  Christian 
unity  and  peace,  I  have  no  wish  to  keep  back  any  portion  of 
their  arguments,  but  rather  a  disposition  to  place  them  all  in 
their  strongest  light,  because  in  no  other  way  could  I  do  them 
justice — in  no  other  way  could  I  bring  each  several  question 
fairly  up  to  the  standard  of  truth — in  no  other  way  could  I 
hope  to  be  of  any  real  service  in  the  warfare  against  error — 
and  above  all — in  no  other  way  could  I  pursue  my  humble 
undertaking  in  the  fear  of  God,  or  obtain  for  it  the  guidance 
and  safeguard  of  his  blessing. 

But  in  addition  to  these  conclusive  reasons  for  the  mode  in 
which  I  have  resolved  to  treat  this  important  controversy,  I 


THE    ROMAN    ARGUMENT.  63 

rejoice  in  the  conviction,  that  in  no  other  way  could  I  promise 
myself  the  desired  measure  of  success.  And  I  hail  it  as  a  sign 
of  an  improving  spirit  in  our  age,  when  calm  and  temperate 
and  thorough  examination  of  the  most  abstruse  and  uninviting 
points  of  theological  discussion,  is  more  welcome  to  the  minds 
of  all  discerning  and  reflecting  men,  than  bitter  invective, 
exaggerated  misstatements,  or  noisy  and  tumid  declamation. 

Our  last  lecture  was  occupied,  as  you  will  probably  recol- 
lect, by  the  proofs  alleged  on  the  part  of  the  distinguished 
Roman  Catholic,  Dr.  Wiseman,  in  favour  of  their  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  rule  of  faith,  which  asserts  not  only  the  author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  written  Word,  but  also  the  equal 
authority  of  their  traditions,  as  being  the  unwritten  Word  of 
God,  handed  down  from  the  apostles  themselves,  through  the 
infallible  instrumentality  of  the  Church.  We  considered,  at 
large,  the  evidence  which  the  Scriptures  furnished  on  the  inse- 
curity of  all  tradition,  up  to  the  days  of  our  blessed  Redeemer. 
We  examined  fully  the  import  of  the  text,  in  which  He  prom- 
ises to  be  with  his  apostles  and  their  successors  to  the  end  of 
the  world;  and  we  showed  how  inconsistent  it  was  with  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  Word  of  God,  that  the  presence  of  Christ 
should  be  interpreted  as  being  a  warrant  for  the  Church's 
infallibility.  The  further  discussion  of  the  Roman  claim  was 
reserved  for  the  following  lecture;  in  which  we  hope,  by  the 
aid  of  Him,  who  is  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life,  to  dispose 
of  the  remaining  arguments  adduced  upon  this  subject. 

The  first  statement  which  meets  us,  in  this  part  of  the  dis- 
cussion, is  calculated  to  make  considerable  impression  on  an 
incautious  mind.  It  is  briefly,  as  follows:  that  our  Saviour 
sent  forth  his  apostles  with  authority;  "As  my  Father  hath 
SENT  ME,  so  SEND  I  YOU:"  that  they  accordingly  preached 
the  Gospel  with  all  authority :  that  they  required  assent  to  the 
things  which  they  spake,  without  referring  their  hearers  to  the 
Scriptures;   nay,  that  when  they  preached  to  the  Gentiles, 


64  THE    ROMAN    ARGUMENT 

they  did  not  even  intimate  that  there  was  such  a  Book :  that 
instead  of  this,  they  ordained  ministers  wherever  they  went, 
and  commanded  the  people  to  listen  and  to  obey  them  that  had 
the  rule  over  them,  saying  every  where,  as  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians  in  the  text — "Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold 
the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word, 
or  our  epistle."  To  this  our  learned  advocate  adds  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apostle  to  Timothy,  (2  Tim.  i.  13)  "Hold  fast 
the  form  of  sound  words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,  in 
faith  and  love  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  That  good  thing 
which  was  committed  unto  thee,  keep  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  dwelleth  in  us;"  in  which  passage,  it  is  plain  that  there 
is  something  else  alluded  to,  besides  the  Scriptures.  In  ano- 
ther place,  the  same  eminent  apostle  saith  to  Timothy,  "The 
things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  by  many  witnesses,  com- 
mit thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  fit  to  teach  others  also." 
"Here  then,"  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Wiseman,  "St.  Paul 
does  not  say,  'Treasure  up  this  my  epistle  as  a  part  of  God's 
holy  Word,  and  give  copies  of  it  to  tliose  whom  you  have  to 
instruct;'  and  this  surely  would  have  been  the  safest  way  of 
preserving  the  doctrines  he  had  delivered;  but  he  tells  Timo- 
thy to  choose  faithful  or  trustworthy  men,  and  to  confide  the 
doctrines  he  had  received  to  their  hands,  that  they,  in  turn, 
might  communicate  them  to  others.  Is  not  this,"  saith  Dr. 
Wiseman,  "clearly  assuming  oral  teaching  as  the  method  to 
be  established  and  pursued  by  the  Church  of  Christ?" 

Now  in  all  this,  my  brethren,  there  is  much  that  we  cheer- 
fully acknowledge;  but  it  is  so  ingeniously  applied  to  a  most 
mistaken  inference,  that  it  will  take  us  some  time  and  attention 
to  disentangle  the  truth  from  the  accompanying  error. 

It  is  true  that  the  apostles  wore  sent  forth  with  authority  to 
teach;  and  that  their  teaching,  as  we  are  assured,  was  "with 
the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  and  with  power."  From  the 
time  when  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  them  on  the  day 


EXAMINED.  65 

of  Pentecost,  they  had  the  infallible  authority  of  inspiration, 
together  with  the  visible  seal  of  heaven  to  that  authority,  in 
the  working  of  miracles,  casting  out  devils,  healing  the  sick, 
conferring  supernatural  powers  such  as  the  gift  of  tongues, 
raising  the  dead,  and  thus  exhibiting  what  St.  Paul,  in  his  epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians,  calls  "the  signs  of  an  apostle." 

It  is  true  likewise,  that  the  apostles  ordained  men  to  be  their 
successors,  in  preaching  the  Gospel  and  governing  the 
Churches  when  they  should  be  no  more ;  but  the  Church  of 
Rome  herself  does  not  pretend  that  these  successors  of  the 
apostles  were  intended  to  possess  either  their  inspiration,  or 
their  miraculous  powers,  or  their  ability  to  confer  superna- 
tural powers  on  others.  I  do  not  indeed  forget,  in  making 
this  assertion,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  claims  the  continuance 
of  miracles  within  her  communion,  and  tells  a  prodigious 
number  of  wonderful  things  about  particular  saints,  which 
every  man  is  at  liberty  either  to  believe  or  not,  just  as  he  may 
think  proper.  But  this  is  altogether  wide  of  the  present  sub- 
ject, because  they  have  never  advanced  the  idea,  that  the 
successors  of  the  apostles,  as  such,  received  the  communication 
of  the  powers  which  we  have  enumerated.  Every  bishop  in 
the  Universal  or  Catholic  Church,  for  instance,  is  a  successor 
to  the  office  of  the  apostles,  in  the  authority  to  teach,  to  ordain, 
and  to  govern.  Such,  precisely,  were  Timothy  and  Titus. 
But  the  Church  of  Rome  has  not  yet  maintained  the  absurdity 
that  her  bishops,  archbishops,  or  even  the  pope  himself,  suc- 
ceeded to  the  apostolic  powers  of  inspiration,  miracles,  and  the 
supernatural  faculty  of  imparting  the  gift  of  tongues  to  others 
by  the  imposition  of  their  hands.  Of  course,  then,  they  cannot 
deny  that  the  preaching  and  teaching  of  the  apostles  stood 
upon  an  independent  basis,  peculiar  to  themselves ;  and,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  totally  inapplicable  to  those  who  should 
come  after  them. 

It  was  perhaps  in  this  very  respect,  that  the  Saviour's  ad- 
G  2 


DO  THE    ROMAN    ARGUMENT 

dress  to  his  apostles  may  best  be  understood,  "  As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."  For  as  he  appealed  to  his 
wonderful  works,  in  proof  of  his  divine  character  and  mission, 
saying  "  Believe  me  for  the  very  works'  sake,"  (John  xiv.  11) 
so  he  promised  to  his  apostles  the  same  kind  of  attestation, 
(ib.  12  V.)  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  he  that  believeth 
on  me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  alsoJ'^  Hence  the 
apostles  were  entitled  to  an  implicit  acquiescence,  on  a  pecu- 
liar ground,  which  none  that  came  after  them  could  rightly 
pretend  to  occupy;  and  hence  we  may  distinctly  see,  that 
their  personal  authority  and  that  of  the  Church  are  of  a 
very  different  description.  To  prove  the  oral  teaching  of  the 
apostles,  there  were  inspiration  and  miracles;  consequently, 
whatever  the  Thessalonians  or  Timothy  heard  them  say,  was 
to  be  believed  with  as  much  reverence  as  what  they  received 
in  writing;  and  the  assent  of  the  mind  in  both  cases  was  to 
be  of  that  absolute  sort,  which  is  called,  in  the  language  of 
theology,  implicit  faith.  But  to  prove  the  oral  teaching  of 
the  apostles'  successors,  or  the  Church,  there  is  neither  inspi- 
ration nor  miracles,  and  therefore  the  Church  is  bound  to  refer 
all  she  teaches  to  the  authority  of  the  apostles.  For  as  in  the 
case  of  the  apostles,  the  doctrine  of  God,  and  the  authority  of 
God  went  together,  so  in  the  case  of  the  Church,  the  authority 
of  the  apostles,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles  must  go  together. 
Surely,  then,  it  must  be  plain,  that  the  grounds  on  which  we 
assert  the  apostles'  infallibility,  are  in  no  respect  applicable  to 
their  successors.  That  the  traditions  delivered  by  the  apos- 
tles themselves,  whether  by  word  or  by  their  epistles,  were 
infallible,  we  freely  grant;  because  the  power  of  miracles  and 
inspiration  proved  their  infalHbility ;  but  that  the  Church  is 
infallible  in  handing  down  to  us  that  apostolical  tradition,  is  a 
totally  different  matter. 

This  might  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  argument  on  the 
other  side;  but  we  should  do  great  injustice  to  the  subject  it 


EXAMINED.  67 

we  failed  to  take  notice  of  two  other  modes  of  understanding 
the  passages  on  which  the  Roman  argument  is  supported,  which, 
to  some  minds,  may  be  more  satisfactory. 

Let  it  then  be  noted,  in  the  second  place,  that  at  the  time 
when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  epistles,  the  New  Testament,  as  we  now 
possess  it,  was  not  in  existence.  The  Old  Testament  indeed 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  and  by  means  of  the  Septuagint 
version  into  Greek,  was  made  accessible  to  the  Gentiles.  But 
the  New  Testament  was  not  recorded  at  all,  except  in  scat- 
tered parts,  some  of  the  most  important  of  which,  namely  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John  and  the  Book  of  Revelation,  were  certainly 
not  written,  until  after  St.  Paul's  martyrdom  ;  and  it  is  alto- 
gether doubtful  whether  any  of  the  other  three  Gospels  were 
in  being,  at  the  time  when  he  wrote  the  language  of  the  text. 
In  the  very  necessity  of  the  case,  therefore,  the  whole  of  what 
we  now  have  from  the  pen  of  inspiration,  viz :  the  generation, 
the  life,  the  doctrine,  the  sufferings,  the  miracles,  the  death, 
resurrection  and  ascension  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour, — all,  in 
a  word,  that  forms  the  four  Gospels,  must  have  been  first  de- 
livered orally  by  the  apostles,  as  the  Word  of  God ;  just  as  the 
communications  of  the  Lord  to  Moses  were  received  by  the 
Israelites,  before  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
recorded.  But  these  communications  to  Moses,  being  after- 
wards committed  to  writing  for  the  purpose  of  safe  transmis- 
sion, we  find  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and  especially  Christ 
himself,  always  appealing  to  the  Scriptures,  and  never  to  the 
oral  tradition  which  preceded  the  Scriptures,  when  a  question 
arose  as  to  what  God  had  said  by  the  mouth  of  Moses.  And 
precisely  in  like  manner  should  we  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  of 
the  New  Testament,  for  the  record  of  those  things  which  the 
apostles  delivered  orally ;  since  it  is  evident  that  we  occupy 
the  same  relation  to  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Jewish 
Church  in  our  Saviour's  days  occupied  with  regard  to  the  Old 


68  THE    SCEIPTURE    IS    THE    LAW. 

Testament,  and  the  Scriptures  of  the  one  must  be  presumed  to 
be  as  complete  and  infallible  a  guide,  as  those  of  the  other. 

In  the  third  place,  however,  it  must  be  remembered,  that 
our  rule  of  faith  does  not  exclude  tradition,  in  those  things 
which  belong  to  interpretation,  or  form,  or  discipline;  and  if 
St.  Paul  is  understood  to  speak  of  these  in  the  text  addressed 
to  the  Thessalonians,  as  he  certainly  did  in  the  text  addressed 
to  Timothy,  there  would  be  no  room  for  controversy  remaining. 
For  I  have  been  careful  to  state,  that  while  we  look  only  to 
the  Scriptures  in  all  points  which  belong  to  faith,  and  like- 
wise in  all  points  which  involve  the  principles  even  of  forms 
and  discipline;  yet  we  regard  with  reverence  the  testimony  of 
tradition,  in  questions  of  interpretation,  as  well  as  in  matters 
of  practical  detail.  And  here,  I  shall  probably  be  more  intel- 
ligible if  I  recur  to  the  doctrine  of  our  third  lecture,  where  I 
argued  from  the  familiar  analogy  of  worldly  things  in  the 
case  of  the  judges  and  the  law.  The  rule  of  faith  which  we 
acknowledge,  is  the  law  of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  recorded 
in  the  Scriptures,  which,  like  every  other  work  of  its  great 
Author,  we  believe  to  be  sufficiently  comprehensive  and  com- 
plete, to  answer  all  the  purposes  of  salvation  for  which  it  was 
given.  Now  surely  it  is  inconceivable  that  an  earthly  legisla- 
ture could  commit  such  a  pre-eminent  absurdity,  as  to  put  forth 
a  system  of  law,  of  which  part  should  be  recorded  in  writing, 
and  another  eqvally  important  part  should  only  be  delivered 
ORALLY  TO  THE  JUDGES,  to  bc  by  them  handed  down  to  those 
who  should  come  after  them,  in  the  same  loose  and  uncertain 
way.  And  we  think  it  still  more  inconceivable,  that  the  All- 
wise  Lawgiver  of  the  Church  should  have  furnished  his  rule  of 
saving  faith  and  obedience  in  such  a  shape,  that  only  part  of 
it  was  committed  to  the  written  record,  while  the  equally  or 
still  more  important  part,  was  to  be  entrusted  by  oral  tradition 
to  the  judges  of  the  Church,  who  should  succeed  the  apostles, 
as  the  interpreters  and  administrators  of  the  system,  for  all 


THE  CHURCH  IS  THE  INTERPRETER.  69 

time  to  come.  Here  is  a  dilemma  out  of  which  the  ingenuity 
ot^the  Church  of  Rome  has  never  been  able  to  extricate  them. 
They  admit,  with  us  and  the  whole  Christian  world,  that  the 
Scriptures  were  written  by  the  Express  inspiration  of  God. 
But  if  tradition  is  as  safe  and  as  infallible  a  repository  for  di- 
vine truth  as  Scripture,  why  were  the  Scriptures  written  at  all? 
Why  was  not  the  whole  of  that  truth  left  to  the  sole  custody 
of  tradition?  On  the  other  hand,  if  tradition  is  not  as  safe  and 
as  infallible  a  repository  for  divine  truth  as  Scripture,  why 
was  only  a  part  of  that  truth  committed  to  Scripture,  and  the 
rest  left  to  the  more  uncertain  mode  of  preservation?  For 
manifest  it  is,  that  no  reason  can  ever  be  assigned  why  part 
of  the  rule  or  law  of  faith  should  have  been  written,  which 
will  not  necessarily  include  the  whole. 

But  in  the  administration  of  earthly  law,  though  the  legisla- 
ture leaves  no  part  of  the  law  unrecorded,  yet  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  law  is  committed  to  the  judges,  and  passes  down 
from  court  to  court,  making  a  rule  of  judicial  tradition,  which 
is  not  indeed  considered  as  infallible,  nor  ever  confounded 
with  the  law  itself,  but  is  yet  regarded  with  high  respect,  and 
never  departed  from  without  the  strongest  evidence  of  error. 
And  besides  this  office  of  interpretation,  there  are  the  various 
forms  of  law,  and  the  rules  of  pleading,  comprising  very  many 
points  of  practice  necessary  to  the  order  of  judicial  proceedings, 
in  which  the  judges  are  left  free  to  adopt  their  own  ideas  of 
propriety,  in  the  first  place;  but  which,  when  once  established, 
constitute  the  rules  of  Court;  and  thus  become  another  branch 
of  judicial  tradition,  handed  down  from  age  to  age  with  much 
regard,  and  although  liable  lo  alteration,  yet  never  altered 
without  great  cause,  and  on  weighty  and  sufficient  reasons. 

Now  here  we  have  a  simple  illustration  of  what  we  under- 
stand to  be  the  office  of  the  Scripture  and  the  office  of  tra- 
dition. The  Scripture  contains  the  perfect,  unerring,  and  di- 
vine law  or  rule  of  faith  ^  committed  to  the  judges  and  officers 


70 


THE    SCRIPTURE    IS    THE    LAW 


of  the  Church,  for  their  administration.  The  apostles,  as  the 
lawgivers  of  the  Church,  to  whom  was  entrusted  the  most  diffi- 
cult part  of  the  great  work  which  was  to  establish  the  govern- 
ment or  kingdom  of  heaven  amongst  men,  were  endowed  with 
inspiration,  and  were  therefore  infallible.  And  as  being  the 
first  judges,  they  laid  down  the  rules  of  Scriptural  interpreta- 
tion, the  forms  of  worship,  the  modes  of  discipline,  the  manner 
of  administering  the  sacraments,  with  many  other  details, 
which  make,  indeed,  no  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  itself,  but 
which  are  indispensable  to  its  proper  and  orderly  operation,  in 
the  hands  of  those  who  were  appointed  to  succeed  them  in  the 
government  of  the  Church  of  God.  Hence,  therefore,  when 
we  read  the  charge  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians  in  the 
text,  to  hold  fast  the  traditions  which  they  had  learned  of  him, 
whether  by  word  or  by  his  epistle,  we  are  under  no  necessity 
of  supposing  him  to  allude  to  any  doctrine  which  formed  a 
part  of  the  great  rule  or  law  of  faith,  and  which  might  be 
readily  collected  in  writing  even  from  his  own  epistles ;  but 
only  to  those  points  of  Church  order  and  discipline,  for  which 
we  find  him  making  a  temporary  arrangement  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  And  in  like  manner,  when  he  charges 
Timothy  to  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words  which  he  had 
heard,  we  understand  him  to  mean,  not  as  the  Church  of 
Rome  would  fain  persuade  us,  some  of  her  doctrines  of  purga- 
tory, or  invocation  of  saints,  or  transubstantiation,  but  those 
forms  of  worship,  the  creed,  and  the  liturgy,  which  we  find 
to  have  been  adopted  by  all  the  primitive  Churches,  and  which 
have  descended  in  their  more  important  parts  even  to  our  own 
day.  We  see,  then,  that  the  language  of  the  text  yields  no 
support  to  the  Roman  traditions,  first,  because  the  authority 
of  inspiration  was  confined  to  the  apostles;  secondly,  because 
the  very  rule  of  faith  itself  was  of  necessity  delivered  orally, 
before  the  Gospels  were  written;  and  thirdly,  because  the 


THE    CHURCH    IS    THE    INTERPRETER.  71 

words  of  St.  Paul  may  be  as  fairly  applied  to  points  of  or- 
der or  practice,  as  to  points  of  faith. 

The  next  argument  of  Dr.  Wiseman  will  not  need  more 
than  a  very  brief  examination.  He  refers  to  a  custom  which 
seems,  for  a  time,  to  have  existed  in  some  parts  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  called  by  theologians  the  discipline  of  the  secret, 
according  to  which  it  appears,  that  candidates  for  admission 
into  the  Church  were  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  more  important 
doctrines  of  the  faith,  until  after  Baptism.  And  he  quotes  a 
passage  from  the  works  of  Rev.  Mr.  Newman,  of  the  Church 
of  England,  to  show,  that  although  the  Scriptures  were  open 
to  every  one  who  chose  to  consult  them,  yet,  in  point  of  fact, 
"  the  fully  developed  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  incarna- 
tion, and  still  more,  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  as  once 
made  upon  the  cross,  and  commemorated  and  appropriated  in 
the  Eucharist,  were  not  learned  from  Scripture,  but  from  the 
Church."  "  From  the  very  first,"  saith  Mr.  Newman,  "  the 
rule  has  been  for  the  Church  to  teach  the  truth,  and  then  ap- 
peal to  the  Scripture  in  vindication  of  its  own  teaching." 
Strangely  enough,  according  to  my  poor  judgment,  Dr.  Wise- 
man conceives  that  this  statement  warrants  his  doctrine  of  tra- 
dition and  infallibility,  whereas  nothing  can  be  farther  from 
the  mark.  For  it  is  evident  that  the  Scriptures  could  no  more 
be  intended  to  supersede  the  active  duties  of  the  ministry,  than 
the  written  laws  of  the  land  could  be  understood  to  supersede 
the  office  of  the  judge.  Indeed  a  similar  principle  runs 
throughout  all  the  arts  and  sciences.  There  are  books  pub- 
lished upon  them  all,  and  yet  hardly  any  one  learns  them 
until  he  has  the  advantage  of  personal  teaching.  But  must 
the  sick  man  suppose  his  physician  to  be  infallible,  because  he 
trusts  implicitly  to  his  skill  ?  Must  the  accused  criminal  sup- 
pose his  lawyer  to  be  infallible,  because  he  confides  in  his  su- 
perior professional  knowledge?  Must  the  apprentice  to  an  or- 
dinary trade  believe  that  his  master  is  infallible,  because  he 


72  TESTIMONY    OF   THE    FATHERS. 

submits  his  ignorance  to  the  master's  instruction?  Does  the 
pupil  in  any  of  the  branches  of  customary  education  hold  the 
infallibility  of  his  teachers,  as  a  necessary  justification  of  his 
placing  himself  under  their  tuition,  instead  of  undertaking  to 
teach  himself?  The  answers  to  such  questions  are  so  ob- 
vious, that  any  child  can  make  them.  There  is  surely,  then, 
nothing  strange  nor  peculiar  to  religion  in  the  fact,  that  while 
the  rule  of  faith  is  indeed  the  Bible,  yet  no  man  learns  that 
faith  or  is  intended  to  learn  it,  from  the  Bible  alone.  The  Bi- 
ble is  to  the  ministry,  what  the  law  is  to  the  judge,  what  the 
science  of  medicine  is  to  the  physician,  or  what  the  established 
text  book  is  to  the  teacher.  And  in  the  primitive  days,  before 
the  Church  was  so  sadly  divided  as  it  has  since  become,  there 
was  still  less  danger  that  those  who  desired  to  be  instructed  in 
religion  should  distrust  the  clergy;  because  there  was  compa- 
ratively but  little  difference  of  opinion  amongst  them:  and  yet 
the  confidence  placed  in  their  instructions  afforded  no  proof, 
that  either  they  or  their  converts  ascribed  absolute  infallibility 
to  any  thing  except  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 

The  third  argument  of  our  learned  advocate  is  derived  from 
the  testimony  of  those  primitive  Christian  writers,  whose 
works  have  come  down  to  our  own  day,  and  who,  from  the 
custom  of  the  Church,  are  commonly  known  by  the  name  of 
the  fathers.  And  on  this  score  I  am  quite  sure  that  our  cause 
has  nothing  to  fear,  when  their  testimony  is  fairly  stated,  and 
properly  understood. 

The  first  name  which  our  learned  advocate  brings  forward, 
is  that  of  Auguslin,  the  bishop  of  Hippo  in  Africa,  who  lived 
in  the  4th  century,  and  was  the  favourite  author  with  Luther, 
the  great  German  reformer.  In  his  book  against  the  Mani- 
chees,  Augustin  expressly  saith,  "  I  should  not  have  believed 
the  Gospel,  if  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  had  not 
moved  me."  "This  little  sentence  contains  at  once,"  says 
Dr.   Wiseman,   "  the  principle  on  which  Augustin  believed. 


AUGUSTIN.  73 

This  greatest  light  of  the  century  in  which  he  hved,  declares, 
that  he  could  not  have  received  the  Scriptures,  except  on  the 
authority  of  the  Catholic  Church."  (p.  114.) 

Now  although  it  is  quite  evident,  that  our  learned  advocate 
regards  this  statement  of  Augustin  as  a  very  important  piece 
of  evidence,  yet  there  is  really  nothing  in  it  to  which  we  have 
the  slightest  objection. 

The  Scriptures  are  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  the 
standard  of  the  Church's  faith,  and  are  committed  to  the  safe 
keeping  of  the  officers  of  the  Church,  through  whom  they  are 
made  known  to  the  world.  As  the  Books  of  Moses  were 
placed  in  the  ark  under  the  care  of  the  priesthood,  so  the  New 
Testament,  along  with  the  Old  Testament,  making  the  com- 
plete record  of  heavenly  truth,  were  placed  in  the  Church, 
under  the  care  of  the  Christian  priesthood.  The  authority  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  therefore,  was  the  only  authority  which 
could  move  an  inquirer  to  confess  the  writings  of  Moses  and 
the  Prophets.  And  in  like  manner,  the  authority  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  was  the  only  authority  which  could  move  St.  Au- 
gustin to  acknowledge  the  writings  of  the  evangelists  and 
apostles.  And  as  the  Jewish  Church  could  not  possibly  be 
mistaken  about  the  first,  so  neither  could  the  Christian  Church 
be  mistaken  about  the  second.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with 
the  infallibility  either  of  the  Jewish  Church  or  the  Christian 
Church,  when  they  talk  to  us  about  traditions  of  the  faith 
which  are  not  in  Scripture  ? 

J^et  us  try  to  make  this  matter  clear  by  a  simple  analogy. 
The  laws  of  the  legislature,  in  every  civilized  country,  are 
committed  to  the  custody  of  certain  officers,  and  the  originals 
are  kept  under  their  care  in  a  place  appointed  for  the  purpose, 
called,  in  England  and  in  some  of  the  United  States,  the  office 
of  the  rolls.  Now  suppose  a  foreigner,  moved  by  the  high 
character  of  any  of  these  countries  to  inquire  into  its  laws, 
should  be  assured  by  the  officers  who  have  them  in  custody, 

H 


74    #  AUGUSTIN. 

that  the  records  which  they  exhibited  were  the  true  transcripts 
of  the  acts  of  the  legislature,  doubtless  he  would  at  once  be- 
lieve them  with  the  most  implicit  reliance ;  first,  because  these 
were  the  persons  appointed  for  the  guardianship  of  the  records  ; 
and  secondly,  because  these  same  laws,  having  been  already 
copied,  published,  and  dispersed  far  and  wide  through  the 
land,  any  interpolation  or  forgery  would  be  impracticable. 
To  admit  such  records,  therefore,  demands  no  belief  of  the 
officers'  infallihility,  but  only  a  confidence  that  they  have 
used  reasonable  diligence  and  care,  in  a  very  simple  matter. 

But  now  suppose  that  these  officers,  after  having  the  full  ac- 
quiescence of  the  stranger  in  the  truth  of  these  records,  should 
undertake  to  tell  him,  that  the  legislature  had  passed  many 
other  resolutions  which  were  equally  binding  with  the  written 
law,  but  which  were  ?iot  to  be  found  recorded,  being  only- 
committed  to  the  memory  of  their  predecessors,  and  intended 
to  be  handed  down  as  the  laws  of  tradition,  from  one  set  of 
officers  to  the  other,  would  the  stranger  be  justified  in  believ- 
ing such  an  assertion?  And  suppose  that  these  officers  should 
say,  "  Sir,  we  are  the  appointed  keepers  of  the  records  of  the 
legislature,  and  you  acknowledge  that  the  writings  we  have 
shown  you  are  the  real  laws  of  the  land.  If  we  are  trust- 
worthy in  keeping  the  books,  why  do  you  not  admit  that  we 
are  infallible  in  handing  down  the  tradition  1  You  have  no 
right  to  believe  the  one,  unless  you  are  prepared  also  to  believe 
the  other."  What  would  any  reasonable  mind  think  of  such 
an  argument  1  Could  any  thing  be  more  absurd  than  to  insist, 
that  a  legislative  body  would  lay  down  half  its  laws  in  wri- 
ting, and  the  other  half  in  verbal  tradition,  and  that  an  honest 
safeguard  of  the  one,  proved  an  infallible  correctness  about 
the  other,  merely  because  the  present  keepers  of  the  legisla- 
tive records  thought  fit  to  say  so  7 

Now  such  is  the  precise  position  in  which  the  Church  of 
Rome  places  herself,  by  this,  one  of  her  most  common  and 


IRENJEUS.  75 

plausible  arguments.  They  say  that  the  Church  has  been  a 
faithful  keeper  and  witness  of  Scripture — the  written  records 
of  the  faith — and  we  willingly  grant  it.  And  then  they  tell 
us,  that  if  we  allow  them  to  have  handed  down  faithfully  the 
records  of  the  apostles,  therefore  we  must  allow  that  they 
have  handed  down,  with  perfect  infallibility,  the  sayings  of 
the  apostles,  and  that  their  report  of  these  sayings  shall  be 
considered  as  much  a  part  of  our  faith  as  the  ivritten  records 
themselves.  Surely,  my  brethren,  there  never  was  a  plainer 
instance  of  false  logic  than  this.  Very  different,  when  fairly 
understood,  is  the  declaration  of  St.  Augustin,  that  he  could 
not  have  received  the  Scriptures,  except  on  the  authority  of 
the  Catholic  Church;  since  this  is  precisely  equivalent  to  our 
saying,  that  we  could  not  receive  the  laws  of  the  land,  except 
on  the  authority  of  the  officers  appointed  to  publish  them. 
Both  these  assertions  are  equally  true,  but  neither  of  them  has 
the  slightest  connexion  with  the  infaUibility  of  the  Church  in 
questions  of  oral  tradition. 

The  next  quotation  which  our  author  makes  is  from  an  earlier 
writer,  Irenseus,  the  bishop  of  Lyons,  who  flourished  in  the  next 
generation  after  the  death  of  St.  John.  And  his  language, 
according  to  the  translation  of  Dr.  Wiseman,  is  as  follows: 
"To  him  that  believeth  there  is  one  God,  and  holds  to  the 
Head,  which  is  Christ,  to  this  man  all  things  will  be  plain,  if 
he  read  diligently  the  Scripture,  with  the  aid  of  those  who  are 
the  priests  in  the  Church,  and  in  whose  hands,  as  we  have 
shown,  rests  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles."  Here,  truly,  is  a 
passage  which  the  learned  advocate  would  hardly  have  chosen, 
if  it  were  not  so  impossible  to  find  any  writer  of  an  early  date, 
whose  language  could  be  brought  even  into  seeming  accord- 
ance with  the  modern  doctrine  of  his  Church.  The  words 
themselves  express  the  very  principle  which  we  maintain  ;  and 
cannot,  without  violence,  be  made  to  inculcate  any  other. 
For  Irenseus  simply  asserts  that  all  things  will  be  plain  to  him 


76  TERTULLIAN. 

that  believes  in  God,  and  holds  the  Head,  that  is  Christ,  if  he 
reads  the  Scriptures  with  the  aid  of  the  priesthood.  I  have 
expressly  stated,  more  than  once,  that  the  priesthood,  being 
the  successors  of  the  apostles,  are,  to  the  Scriptures,  what  the 
judges  are  to  the  law.  And  just  as  he  who  would  understand 
the  law,  must  not  only  read  the  law  itself  but  also  the  con- 
struction of  the  judges,  so  likewise  must  he  who  would  under- 
stand the  Scriptures,  not  only  read  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
but  also  have  the  interpretation  of  those,  to  whom  the  office  of 
instruction  and  of  government  in  the  Church  has  been  commit- 
ted. What  is  there  in  this,  to  prove  the  infallibility  of  tradi- 
tion?    Manifestly  nothing  whatever. 

Our  author's  third  quotation  is  from  TertuUian,  who  flourished 
in  the  next  generation  after  Irenseus ;  and,  as  before,  I  shall 
take  his  own  translation.  "  What  will  you  gain,"  saith  this 
eminent  father,  "  by  recurring  to  Scripture,  when  one  denies 
what  the  other  asserts  ?  Learn  rather  who  it  is  that  possesses 
the  faith  of  Christ;  to  whom  the  Scriptures  belong;  from 
whom,  by  whom,  and  when  that  faith  was  delivered,  by  which 
we  are  made  Christians.  For  where  shall  be  found  the  true 
faith,  there  will  be  the  genuine  Scriptures,  there  the  true  inter- 
pretations of  them,  and  there  all  Christian  traditions.  Christ 
chose  his  apostles,  whom  he  sent  to  preach  to  all  nations. 
They  delivered  his  doctrines  and  founded  Churches,  from  which 
Churches  others  drew  the  seeds  of  the  same  doctrine,  as  new 
ones  daily  continue  to  do.  Thus  these,  as  the  offspring  of  the 
apostolic  Churches,  are  themselves  esteemed  apostolical.  Now 
to  know  what  the  apostles  taught,  that  is,  what  Christ  revealed 
to  them,  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  Churches  which  they 
founded,  and  which  they  instructed  by  word  of  mouth  and  by 
their  epistles.  For  it  is  plain,  that  all  doctrine  which  is  con- 
formable to  the  faith  of  these  mother  Churches  is  true ;  being 
that  which  they  received  from  the  apostles,  the  apostles  from 


TERTULLIAN.  77 

Christ,  Christ  from  God ;  and  that  all  other  opinions  must  be 
novel  and  false." 

"  Is  not  this,"  saith  Dr.  Wiseman,  "  precisely  the  very  rule 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic   Church,"   (meaning  the 
Church  of  Rome)  "proposes  at  the  present  day?"     I  answer 
confidently  that  it  is  not;  although  it  may  be  so  applied  as   to 
look  like  it,  to  an  ill-informed  or  careless  reader.     On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  in  exact  conformity  with  the  principle,  that  the  rule 
of  faith  is  in  the  Scriptures,  while  the  guardianship  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  interpretation  of  them,  the  forms  and  practices  con- 
nected  with  worship  and  the  sacraments,  and  the  details  of 
discipline,  were  committed  to  the  Church.     To  understand  the 
passage  aright,  therefore,  it  should  be  noted,  first,  that  it  occurs 
in  a  book  which  Tertullian  wrote  against  the  Gnostic  heretics 
of  his  day,  who  mutilated  the  Word  of  inspiration,  in  order 
that  they  might  deny  the  faith,  in  the  all-important  doctrines 
of  the  divinity,  humanity,  and  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.    They 
virtually  destroyed  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  by  wanton- 
ly casting  aside  every  part  of  the  gospels  and  epistles  which 
did  not  suit  them.     They  abolished  the  Old  Testament,  under 
the  blasphemous  notion  that  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  es- 
tablished, not  by  the  Supreme  God,  but  by  an  evil  being  whom 
they  called  the  Demivrgus,  and  whom  it  was  the  chief  design 
of  the  Gospel  to  overcome.     They  taught  that  Christ  vvas  not 
God,  but  one  of  thirty  celestial  beings  whom  they  called  (Bons, 
and  that  he  had  no  human  nature,  but  only  assumed  the  form 
of  man  to  deceive  the  Jews.     They  said  that  he  was  not  cruci- 
fied at  all,  but  that  this  also  was  a  delusion.     And  along  with 
these  impieties,  they  indulged  themselves  in  many  practices  of 
the  most  shocking  immorality ;  so  that  to  them,  chiefly,  were 
imputed  the  scandalous  reproaches,  so  often  made  among  the 
heathen  against  the  Christian  name. 

You  will  now  be  able,  my  brethren,  to  understand  aright  the 
argument  presented  by  Tertullian,  knowing  against  whom,  and 


78  TERTULLIAN. 

for  what  purpose,  the  passage  was  written.  It  is  evident,  that 
in  arguing  against  these  flagitious  heretics,  there  was  nothing 
to  be  gained  by  reasoning  from  Scripture,  because  they  denied 
the  true  Scriptures,  and  endeavoured  to  set  up  false  ones  in  their 
stead.  Hence,  the  first  step  was  to  bring  them,  as  it  were,  to 
the  very  birth-places  of  Christianity,  to  induce  them  to  recur  to 
the  Churches  planted  by  apostolic  hands,  that  from  their  testi- 
mony they  might  learn  which  the  real  Scriptures  were,  and 
how  the  successors  of  the  apostles  interpreted  them.  In  Ter- 
tullian's  days,  this  was  easily  done  ;  because  he  lived  only  one 
century  later  than  the  apostle  John,  and  there  was  not  time  for 
any  apostolic  Church  to  have  become  much  changed,  or  at  all 
corrupted.  And  therefore  he  tells  the  heretics  to  go  to  these 
places  where  the  Gospel  was  first  planted;  to  Corinth,  or  to 
Ephesus,  or  to  Rome,  because  there  they  would  find  the  true 
Scriptures,  the  pure  faith,  the  correct  interpretation,  and  all 
those  Christian  traditions  of  forms,  discipline  and  worship, 
which  belonged  to  the  practical  administration  of  the  Gospel 
system.  Surely  it  is  manifest  that  the  passage,  thus  explained, 
is  consistent  and  clear  ;  and  that  in  arguing  wdth  such  men,  no 
other  course  could  have  been  taken.  But  it  results,  incontro- 
vertibly,  that  the  language  of  Tertullian  has  no  bearing  upon 
the  points  under  consideration,  namely,  the  authority  oi"  tradi- 
tion in  adding  to  the  doctrines  of  faith  things  not  contained  in 
Scripture,  and  the  infallibility  in  pronouncing  upon  these  tra- 
ditions, claimed  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  traditions 
mentioned  by  Tertullian  may  be  understood  much  more  reason- 
ably as  referring  to  points  of  practice,  rather  than  points  of 
faith;  and  as  to  infallibility,  he  does  not  say  one  word  about 
the  matter. 

Our  author  adds  some  other  extracts  from  Origen,  Cyprian, 
Chrysostom,  and  Epiphanius:  but  as  they  are  not  so  strong  as 
those  which  I  have  just  examined,  I  shall  not  detain  you  by 


AUGUSTIN.  79 

commenting  on  them.     Rather  let  me  proceed  to  show  you 
how  these  same  fathers  speak,  upon  our  side  of  the  question. 

To  begin  with  Augustin.  In  a  set  of  most  interesting  medi- 
tations, being  the  11th  book  of  his  Confessions,  (1  Vol.  147, 
§  3)  this  language  occurs,  relative  to  the  Scriptures.  "O  Lord 
my  God,  hasten  to  my  prayer,  and  let  thy  mercy  hearken  to 
my  supplication.  Let  thy  Scriptures  be  my  pure  delight;  may 
I  neither  be  deceived  in  them,  nor  deceive  others  from  them." 
Again,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Donatists,  who  had  separated  from 
the  Church  schismatically,  although  otherwise  orthodox,  he 
saith,  (2  Vol.  228,  §  14)  "In  the  Scriptures  we  learn  Christ, 
in  the  Scriptures  we  learn  the  Church.  Those  Scriptures  we 
have  in  common:  Why  do  we  not  hold  together  in  them,  in 
Christ,  and  the  Church."  (§  17)  "If  in  Christ,  of  whom  you 
only  read  without  seeing  him,  you  nevertheless  believe,  by 
reason  of  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures,  why  do  you  deny  the 
Church,  which  you  both  read  and  see?"  And  again,  speaking 
of  the  Donatists  in  his  epistle  to  Boniface,  (2  Vol.  490,  §  2}  he 
repeats  the  sentiment  in  still  stronger  words.  "Let  us  pray 
for  them,"  saith  he,  "  that  the  Lord  may  open  their  minds  to 
understand  the  Scriptures.  Because  in  the  sacred  books, 
where  our  Lord  Christ  is  manifested,  there  also  is  his  Church 
declared.  But  wonderful  is  their  blindness,  since,  while  they 
cannot  know  Christ  himself,  except  by  the  Scriptures,  never- 
theless they  do  not  acknowledge  the  Church  by  the  authority 
of  the  same  Scriptures."  Here  you  perceive,  brethren,  that 
while  Augustin  appeals  to  the  authoritative  testimony  of  the 
Church,  in  one  place,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  which 
are  the  Scriptures,  yet  after  that  point  is  established,  he  looks 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  for  the  knowledge  both  of 
Christ  and  the  Church. 

Again,  in  his  epistle  to  Consentius,  (2  Vol.  p.  584,  §  3) 
warning  him  to  be  content  with  the  simple  words  of  Scripture 
on  the  subject  of  Christ's  resurrection,  Augustin  says,  "Christ 


80  TERTULLIAN. 

added  no  more;  therefore  let  us  inquire  no  farther." — "For 
whatever  any  one  may  add  to  the  Scripture,  let  him  take  heed 
that  he  adds  not  corruption,  lest  he  contaminates  the  purity 
and  health  of  his  faith.''''  And  once  more,  in  another  epistle  to 
the  same,  (2  Vol.  p.  266,  §  13)  Augustin  expressly  declares, 
that  heresy  arises  out  of  the  misunderstanding  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. "For  all  heretics,"  saith  he,  "who  receive  the  Scrip- 
tures as  authority,  seem  to  themselves  to  be  following  the 
Scriptures  when  they  are  following  their  own  errors;  and 
therefore  they  are  heretics,  not  because  they  despise  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  because  they  do  not  understand  them.''''  Surel}^, 
brethren,  these  ^ew  extracts  must  suffice  to  show,  that  this 
witness  of  Dr.  Wiseman's  own  selecting,  regarded  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  true  rule  or  faith,  while  he  looked  to  the 
Church  for  the  safe  guide  of  interpretation. 

Let  us  next  hear  Tertullian,  another  of  the  witnesses  already 
referred  to  on  the  Roman  side  of  the  argument.  In  the  same 
book  cited  by  Dr.  Wiseman,  (207)  he  calls  the  Scriptures  the 
"letters  of  faith,"  and  repeating  the  heretic's  favourite 
maxim,  "Seek  and  you  shall  find,"  he  saith,  (p.  205)  "I  wil- 
lingly grant  that  it  is  said  to  all ;  Seek  and  you  shall  find. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  expedient  that  the  true  sense  of  Scripture 
should  be  sought  under  the  government  of  interpretation.'''' 
This  is  precisely  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  whole  subject. 
The  Scriptures  furnish  the  law  or  rule  of  faith ;  and  the  Church, 
in  her  authorized  priesthood,  furnishes  the  interpreter.  Again, 
the  same  father^  alluding  to  the  apostolic  Churches,  saith,  that 
"they  still  retained  the  very  chairs  which  the  apostles  occu- 
pied, and  their  authentic  epistles,  sounding  the  voice  and  repre- 
senting the  countenance  of  each  one,"  (p.  215)  and  he  proceeds 
in  these  words,  speaking  of  a  believer  who  should  have  gone 
over  all  these  Churches :  "  Let  us  see  what  he  would  have 
learned,  and  what  he  should  be  prepared  to  teach.  He 
acknowledges  one  God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  and  Jesus 


IREN^US.  81 

Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Son  of  God  the  Creator, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  He  unites  the  law  and  the 
prophets  with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles^ 
and  from  thence  he  drinks  his  faith:  he  signs  it  with  water, 
he  clothes  it  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  feeds  it  with  the  Eucha- 
rist, he  exhorts  it  to  martyrdom,  and  he  receives  no  one  who 
opposes  this  sacred  institution."  In  the  following  page,  he 
speaks  of  the  Scriptures  in  these  words  :  "Wherever  a  diversity 
of  doctrine  is  found,  there  also  is  the  adulteration  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  of  the  interpretation  of  them.  For  those 
who  purpose  to  teach  a  different  doctrine,  are  forced  by  neces- 
sity to  alter  the  instruments  of  doctrine."  Here  he  calls  the 
Scriptures  by  their  true  title,  the  instruments  of  doctrine^ 
which  is  precisely  equivalent  to  their  being  the  rule  of  faith. 
Again,  describing  their  assemblies  for  worship,  in  his  cele- 
brated apology,  written  to  influence  the  Roman  Emperors  to 
cease  their  persecution,  he  saith,  "We  meet  together,  (p.  31) 
to  be  refreshed  in  our  minds  by  the  Holy  Scriptures.  We 
feed  our  faith  by  the  divine  Words,  we  elevate  our  hope,  we 
estabHsh  our  confidence."  Again,  saith  he,  (35)  "  We  have 
now  shown  our  whole  condition,  and  in  what  manner  we  can 
prove  that  it  is  as  we  have  declared  it,  namely,  by  the  faith 
and  antiquity  of  the  divine  Scriptures."  A  volume  might 
be  written,  brethren,  filled  with  extracts  from  these  authors, 
all  going  to  the  same  point;  but  our  limits  force  me  to  be 
brief,  and  thei'efore  I  pass  on  to  another  of  Dr.  Wiseman's 
witnesses,  whose  testimony  you  will  find  in  no  respect  at  vari- 
ance with  what  has  been  already  laid  before  you. 

Irenseus  (p.  156)  saith,  "The  Scriptures  truly  are  perfect, 
because  they  are  dictated  by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God." 
And  again,  "We  have  known  the  plan  of  our  salvation,"  saith 
he,  (p.  173)  "only  through  those  by  whom  the  Gospel  was 
delivered  to  us,  which  truly  they  preached,  but  which  after- 
wards, by  the  will  of  God,  they  delivered  to  us  in  the  Scrip- 


82  CYPRIAN. 

TURES,  to  be  the  foundation  and  the  pillar  of  our  faith.  For 
after  our  Lord  rose  from  the  dead,  and  they  were  clothed  with 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  descending  upon  them  from 
heaven,  they  were  filled  with  all  spiritual  gifts,  and  had  perfect 
knowledge ;  and  thus  they  went  forth  to  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
announcing  celestial  peace  to  men,  and  each  having  committed 
to  him  the  Gospel  of  God.  Accordingly,"  continues  Irenseus, 
"Matthew  set  forth  his  Gospel,  about  the  time  when  Peter  and 
Paul  preached  at  Rome,  and  founded  the  Church  there.  And 
after  their  departure,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  companion  of 
Peter,  delivered  in  writing  those  things  which  were  preached 
by  Peter.  And  Luke,  the  follower  of  Paul,  set  down  in  a  book 
the  Gospel  as  it  was  preached  by  Paul.  And  afterwards  John, 
the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  reclined  on  his  breast,  published 
his  Gospel  during  his  abode  at  Ephesus.  And  all  these  deli- 
vered unto  us  the  one  God,  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth, 
announced  by  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  one  Christ  the 
Son  of  God."  Here,  brethren,  we  have  the  simple  doctrine 
of  the  primitive  Church,  for  L-enseus  was  the  bishop  of  Lyons 
in  the  next  generation  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  and 
he  states  that  the  Scriptures  contained  the  whole  of  the  apos- 
tles' preaching,  and  that  they  were  delivered  to  the  Church, 
by  the  will  of  God,  to  be  the  ground  and  pillar  of  the  faith. 
Nothing  can  be  more  direct  to  the  point,  nothing  more  con- 
clusive. 

Let  us  next  hear  Cyprian,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Carthage, 
who  flourished  in  the  next  century  after  L^enceus,  and  who  is 
also  one  of  Dr.  Wiseman's  chosen  witnesses.  In  the  dispute 
between  him  and  Stephen,  then  bishop  of  Rome,  of  which  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  speak  more  fully  hereafter,  Cyprian 
argues  against  the  authority  of  the  tradition  which  Stephen 
had  adduced,  touching  a  matter,  however,  which  was  rather  a 
point  of  discipline  than  a  doctrine  of  faith,  namely,  whether 
the  baptism  performed  by  heretics  should  be  repeated  by  the 


CYRIL.  83 

Catholic  Church  or  not.  Nevertheless,  although  it  was  only 
a  point  of  discipline,  mark  how  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  princi- 
ple. "  Whence,"  says  he,  "  is  this  tradition?"  (Ch.  of  Rome, 
p.  129,  Am.  ed.)  "Is  it  that  which  descends  from  the  author- 
ity of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Gospel,  or  which  comes  to  us  from 
the  precepts  of  the  apostles  and  their  epistles?  For  those 
things  which  are  written  are  to  be  done,  as  the  Lord  testifies 
and  proposes  to  Joshua,  saying,  '  This  book  of  the  law  shall 
not  depart  from  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day 
and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  all  things  which  are 
written  therein.'  In  like  manner,  the  Lord,  sending  his  apos- 
tles, commands  them  to  teach  and  baptize  the  nations,  that 
they  may  observe  all  things  which  were  commanded  them. 
If  therefore,"  continues  Cyprian,  "  it  is  either  directed  in  the 
Gospel,  or  contained  in  the  epistles  of  the  apostles  or  in  the 
acts,  let  this  divine  and  holy  tradition  be  observed. 
But  how  great  is  this  obstinacy,  how  bold  this  presumption,  to 
place  this  human  tradition  before  the  divine  sanction,  forgetting 
that  God  is  always  indignant  and  wrathful,  whenever  human 
traditions  are  exalted  above  his  precepts."  I  think,  brethren, 
that  no  one  who  reads  this  passage  can  be  in  doubt,  whether 
Cyprian  held  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  rule  of  faith,  for  the 
nature  of  the  dispute  proves,  that  he  not  only  held  them  to  be 
the  rule  of  faith,  but  the  rule  of  practice  also. 

Cyril,  the  archbishop  of  Jerusalem,  is  another  witness  cited 
by  the  advocate  of  tradition,  and  therefore  let  us  listen  to  his 
testimony,  which  will  not  detain  us  long,  and  is  directly  to  the 
purpose.  "  The  faith,"  saith  he,  "  which  the  Church  delivers 
to  you  in  the  form  of  the  Creed,  to  be  embraced  and  learned 
and  professed,  is  fenced  all  around  by  the  Scriptures.  For 
as  all  cannot  read  the  Scriptures,  and  some  are  hindered  from 
a  proper  knowledge  of  them  by  unskilfulness,  and  others  by 
press  of  occupation,  we  comprehend  the  universal  system  of 
faith  in  a  few  verses,  lest  the  soul  of  any  should  perish  by 


84  VINCENT. 

ignorance.  Retain  this  faith  in  your  memory,  and  as  you 
have  opportunity,  take  the  contents  of  each  head  from  the 
holy  Scriptures.  For  this  summary  of  the  faith  was  not 
composed  according  to  the  fancy  of  men,  but  the  most  impor- 
tant heads  were  selected  from  the  whole  Scripture  to  perfect 
and  complete  the  one  doctrine  of  faith.  And  in  hke  manner 
as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  contains  many  branches  in  a  Httle 
space,  so  does  this  faith  involve  within  it  all  the  knowledge 
of  piety  contained  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  Be- 
hold therefore,"  saith  Cyril  in  conclusion,  "  and  hold  these  tra- 
ditions which  you  now  receive,  and  write  them  on  the  tables  of 
your  hearts."  Surely,  my  brethren,  nothing  can  exceed  the 
force  and  plainness  of  this  testimony,  that  the  rule  of  faith 
in  the  primitive  Church,  was  the  rule  which  we  profess — the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

In  another  part  of  his  celebrated  books,  the  same  Cyril  has 
this  observation,  (p.  155)  "Since  there  are  many  things  in 
Scripture  which  we  do  not  fully  understand,  why  should  we 
trouble  our  minds  with  what  is  not  in  Scripture  ?" 

Again,  (p.  170)  he  asks,  "Are  not  the  divine  Scriptures 
our  salvation?" 

And  again,  (p.  244.)  "The  Holy  Ghost,"  saith  Cyril, 
"dictated  the  Scriptures — Let  us  say  therefore  those  things 
which  were  spoken  by  Him:  whatever  He  has  not  said,  we 
dare  not." 

To  conclude  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  upon  this  impor- 
tant point,  brethren,  I  shall  cite  but  one  passage  more,  and 
this  shall  be  from  Vincent  of  Lerins — a  witness  whose  evi- 
dence Dr.  Wiseman  calls  triumphant,  although  he  does  not 
quote  his  words.  In  answer  to  the  question.  How,  in  reading 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  true  Christian  shall  be  directed  against 
the  danger  of  misconstruction,  Vincent  replies,  that  "  the  sacred 
Scriptures  must  he  interpreted  according  to  the  sense  which 
Ecclesiastical  tradition  in  the  Catholic  and  apostolic  Church 


CONCLUSION.  85 

shall  sanction,  always  observing  the  rules  of  universality,  an- 
tiquity and  consent."  (p.  360.)  Or,  as  the  same  author 
has  elsewhere  expressed  it,  "  In  the  Catholic  Church  herself 
we  must  take  care  to  hold  only  that  which  has  been  beheved 
every  where,  and  always,  and  by  all.  For  this  alone  is  truly 
and  properly  Catholic."  And  such,  brethren,  is  the  rule  we 
have  been  all  along  defending :  the  Scriptures  as  the  written 
law,  interpreted  by  the  Church,  when  the  Church  was  justly 
called  Catholic,  that  is,  general  or  universal.  And  therefore 
we  are  always  ready  to  have  our  doctrine  tried  by  this  stand- 
ard, and  join  most  willingly  in  the  appeal  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  primitive  fathers,  because  we  know  that  the  nearer  their 
writings  come  to  the  pure  beginning  of  Christianity,  the  more 
they  will  be  found  to  justify  us  in  our  controversy  with  the 
Church  of  Rome.  For  the  very  design  and  object  of  the 
English  Reformation,  was  to  bring  back  the  Church  of  Christ 
to  the  original  standard  of  primitive  Christianity  ;  and  the  fun- 
damental complaint  made  against  the  Church  of  Rome  was, 
that  she  had  brought  in  novelties  upon  the  original  system, 
and  that  she  defended  them,  not  by  arguments  drawn  from 
Scripture,  according  to  the  interpretation  of  the  primitive 
Church,  but  by  relying  on  the  assumption  that  she  was  infalli- 
ble, and  could  not  go  astray,  and  that  therefore  all  her  doc- 
trines must  be  placed  on  an  equality  with  the  Gospel. 

But  here,  my  beloved  brethren,  we  must  release  you  from 
a  series  of  argument  and  proof,  which  I  fear  you  have  found 
too  long  and  too  dry  to  be  otherwise  than  uninteresting,  but 
which  I  knew  not  how  to  abbreviate  in  justice  to  the  truth.  Our 
next  topic,  namely,  the  Papacy,  together  with  the  subject  of 
the  Councils,  will  occupy  several  discourses,  every  portion  of 
which  will  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  points  we  have  been 
discussing,  and  the  evidence  to  be  adduced  will  accumulate  as 
we  go  on,  so  as  to  demonstrate,  more  and  more  clearly,  the 
fallaciousness  of  the  claim,  which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  for 

I 


86  CONCLUSION. 

centuries  advanced,  to  be  called  infallible  and  Catholic.  Ah ! 
were  she  indeed  entitled  to  these  epithets,  what  miseries  and 
wretchedness  might  have  been  spared  to  the  Christian  world ! 
Had  she  indeed  been  possessed  of  such  attributes,  how  absurd 
would  it  have  been  to  make  any  attempt  at  Reformation !  To 
her  innovations  upon  that  primitive  Church  which  was  truly- 
Catholic,  the  necessity  of  the  Reformation  must  be  imputed  ; 
and  if  that  Reformation  has  brought  along  with  it  the  inevitable 
evils  of  disunion,  it  is  not  so  much  to  be  charged  upon  the  re- 
formers, as  upon  the  awful  degeneracy,  which  was  not  only 
the  sole  plea  for  their  perilous  task,  but  which  could  alone, 
under  God,  have  made  such  an  enterprise  successful.  Nor 
are  the  modern  relaxations  of  all  religious  discipline,  and  the 
prevailing  indifference  to  ecclesiastical  authority,  effects  for 
which  the  cause  assigned  is  not  abundantly  sufficient,  on  the 
most  familiar  principles  of  human  action.  The  fetters  of  spi- 
ritual despotism  once  broken,  licentiousness  of  course  would 
follow.  Excess  of  form  and  ceremony  once  exposed,  con- 
tempt of  all  form  would  be  likely  to  succeed  it.  The  claims 
of  infallibility  once  proved  to  be  an  usurpation,  a  disregard  of 
all  authority  above  that  of  private  judgment  would  prevail. 
Indulgences  and  superstitions  made  profitable  to  the  priest- 
hood, once  brought  down  from  their  unjust  elevation,  would  be 
necessarily  replaced  by  the  cry  of  priestcraft  against  the  whole 
theory  and  practice  of  true  religion ;  the  name  of  saint,  once 
honourable,  would  become  a  byword  of  derision ;  and  all  the 
bands  of  veneration  for  the  decision  of  the  Church,  in  her  an- 
cient and  her  better  days,  would  be  cast  aside,  as  part  and  par- 
cel of  popery.  Thus  has  it  always  been,  that  one  extreme 
produces  its  opposite;  and  such  was  the  working  of  the  princi- 
ple in  the  progress  of  the  Reformation,  that  nothing  but  the  re- 
straining hand  of  God  himself  could  have  kept  it  within  any 
moderate  bounds,  and  brought  out  of  the  chaotic  elements  of 
that  tremendous  conflict,  a  result  which,  on  the  whole,  has  been 


CONCLUSION.  87 

so  pure  and  beneficial.  To  the  rule  of  faith  set  up  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  may  be  fairly  ascribed  all  the  evil.  To  the 
rule  of  faith  which  restored  the  Bible  to  its  primitive  ascend- 
ency  should  be  attributed  all  the  good,  and  to  the  Lord  alone 
should  be  ascribed  all  the  "  glory  and  the  praise,  for  his  mercy 
and  truth's  sake." 

May  the  influence  of  that  only  infallible  standard  be  mani- 
fested more  and  more,  my  beloved  brethren,  until  the  Church 
of  Rome  herself  shall  have  returned  to  her  own  first  profes- 
sion; and  every  discordant  portion  of  the  Church  Universal 
shall  be  united  once  more,  in  Catholic  harmony  and  peace. 


LECTUEE  VI. 


Matt.  xvi.  15, 16, 17, 18, 19. — Jesus  saitli  to  them:  But  whom  do  you 
say  that  I  am  ?  Simon  Peter  answering,  said  :  Thou  art  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.  And  Jesus  answering,  said  to  him : 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona;  because  flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I 
say  to  thee :  That  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it:  And 
I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven: 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also 
in  heaven. 


The  words  which  I  have  read  to  you,  my  brethren,  are 
taken  from  the  Doway  Bible,  that  is,  the  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  allowed  and  approved  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  to 
which,  in  all  questions  of  controversy  between  them  and  us, 
we  are  perfectly  willing  to  appeal,  so  far  as  any  mere  transla- 
tion is  entitled  to  confidence.  The  passage  itself  is  of  cardi- 
nal importance  to  their  claims,  since  on  it,  chiefly,  they  rest 
their  distinguishing  tenet  of  faith,  viz :  that  the  Pope  or  bishop 
of  Rome,  as  the  successor  of  the  apostle  Peter,  is  the  earthly 
head  of  the  Catholic  or  Universal  Church,  throughout  the 
world;  and  that  communion  with  him  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. The  consideration  of  this  article  of  the  Roman  creed 
forms  the  subject  of  the  following  lecture,  and  will  probably 
require  two  lectures  more  in  order  to  complete  even  a  con- 
densed discussion  of  it.     For  independently  of  the  general 


PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  89 

order  of  evidence  and  argument  belonging  to  the  tenet  itself,  it 
is  rendered  particularly  difficult,  notonly  because  of  the  variety 
of  sentiment  existing  with  regard  to  it  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
but  especially  because  no  article  of  their  creed  has  undergone 
a  more  serious  change  through  the  influence  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. 

That  we  may  explain  it  to  you,  brethren,  with  as  much 
clearness  and  simplicity  as  we  can,  we  shall  first  examine 
the  scriptural  evidence  of  the  doctrine  as  it  is  set  forth  by  Dr. 
Wiseman,  in  its  modern  and  popular  form;  secondly,  state 
the  doctrine  as  it  was  professed  before  the  Reformation,  and 
as  it  continues  to  be  held  by  the  Popes  to  the  present  day; 
and  thirdly,  point  out  its  influence  upon  the  past  history  of  the 
world :  from  which  may  be  fairly  inferred  what  its  influence 
would  probably  be  upon  its  future  history,  if  ever,  in  the  pro- 
vidence of  God,  it  should  again  be  suffered  to  prevail.  Of 
these  three  topics,  the  first  alone  will  be  amply  sufficient  for 
the  time  allotted  to  the  present  lecture. 

We  shall  now,  therefore,  without  further  preface,  enter  upon 
our  allotted  task,  by  stating  Dr.  Wiseman's  definition  of  the 
doctrine.  "What,"  saith  he,  "do  Roman  Catholics  mean  by 
the  supremacy  of  the  Pope?"  And  the  following  is  his  -an- 
swer:— "It  signifies  that  the  Pope  or  bishop  of  Rome,  as  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  possesses  authority  and  jurisdiction  in 
all  things  spiritual  over  the  entire  Church,  so  as  to  constitute 
its  visible  head,  and  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  upon  earth. 
The  idea  of  this  supremacy  involves  two  distinct,  but  closely 
allied  prerogatives:  the  first  is,  that  the  Pope  is  the  centre  of 
unity;  the  second,  that  he  is  the  fountain  of  authority.  By 
the  first  is  signified  that  all  the  faithful  must  be  in  communion 
with  him,  through  their  respective  pastors,  who  form  an  un- 
broken chain  of  connexion  from  the  lowest  member  of  the 
flock,  to  him  who  has  been  constituted  its  universal  shepherd. 
To  violate  this  union  and  communion  constitutes  the  grievous 


90  THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

crime  of  schism,  and  destroys  an  essential  constituent  princi- 
ple of  Christ's  religion."  (P.  216,  Vol.  1.) 

"  We  likewise,"  continues  our  author,  "  hold  the  Pope  to  be 
the  source  of  authority,  as  all  the  subordinate  rulers  in  the 
Church  are  subject  to  him,  and  receive,  directly  or  indirectly, 
their  jurisdiction  from  and  by  him.  Thus  the  executive  power 
is  vested  in  his  hands,  for  all  spiritual  purposes  within  the 
Church ;  to  him  is  given  the  task  of  confirming  his  brethren 
in  the  faith ;  his  office  is  to  watch  over  the  correction  of  abuses 
and  the  maintenance  of  discipline;  in  case  of  error  springing 
up  in  any  part,  he  must  make  the  necessary  investigations  to 
discover  and  condemn  it,  and  either  bring  the  refractory  to 
submission,  or  separate  them,  as  withered  branches,  from  the 
vine.  In  cases  of  great  and  influential  disorder  in  faith  or 
practice,  he  convenes  a  General  Council  of  the  pastors  of  the 
Church,  presides  over  it  in  person  or  by  his  legates;  and 
sanctions,  by  his  approbation,  its  canons  or  decrees."  (P. 
217.) 

"This  supremacy,"  adds  Dr.  Wiseman,  "is  of  a  character 
purely  spiritual,  and  has  no  connexion  with  any  temporal  ju- 
risdiction. The  sovereignty  of  the  Pope  over  his  own  domi- 
nions is  no  essential  portion  of  his  dignity;  his  supremacy  was 
not  the  less  before  these  dominions  were  acquired,  and  should 
the  unsearchable  decrees  of  Providence,  in  the  lapse  of  ages, 
deprive  the  Holy  See"  (that  is,  the  Church  of  Rome)  "of  its 
temporal  sovereignty,  as  happened  to  the  7th  Pius,  through 
the  usurpation  of  a  conqueror,  its  dominion  over  the  Church 
and  over  the  consciences  of  the  faithful,  would  not  be  thereby 
impaired."  (P.  218.) 

Let  us  here  pause  a  moment,  brethren,  and  contemplate  the 
idea  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  presented  to  us  by  the  system  of 
our  Roman  Catholic  brethren".  You  perceive  that  it  is  a  per- 
fect monarchy,  of  which  the  Pope  is  the  head,  under  the  name 
of  Christ's  vicegerent,  but  with  an  extent  of  empire  and  pre- 


A   MONARCHY.  91 

rogative  far  beyond  those  of  any  other  potentate.  And  that  I 
may  not  be  supposed  to  speak  without  authority,  I  quote,  once 
more,  the  words  of  our  learned  advocate.  "The  Church  of 
Christ  has  been  presented  to  you,"  saith  he,  in  the  opening  of 
the  same  discourse,  "under  the  form  of  a  sacred  kingdom, 
wherein  all  the  parts  are  cemented  and  firmly  bound  together, 
in  unity  of  belief  and  practice,  resulting  from  a  common  prin- 
ciple of  faith,  under  an  authority  constituted  by  God  .  .  .  The 
tendency  of  every  institution  in  the  Church  to  produce  and 
cherish  this  religious  unity  ....  will  lead  us  naturally  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  authority  which  principally  secures  it  must  like- 
wise be  convergent  in  its  exercise  towards  the  same  attribute. 
We  saw,"  continues  he,  "how,  in  the  old  law,  the  authority 
constituted  to  each,  narrowed  in  successive  steps,  till  it  was 
concentrated  in  one  man  and  his  line;  we  saw  how  all  the 
figures  of  the  prophets  lead  us  to  expect  a  form  of  government 
justly  symbolized  as  a  Monarchy;  and  although  God  is  to  be 
its  ruler,  and  the  Son  of  David  its  eternal  Head,  yet  as  their 
action  upon  man  is  invisible  and  indiscernible,  while  the  ob- 
jects and  ends  held  in  view,  such  as  unity  of  faith,  are  sensible 
and  dependent  on  outward  circumstances,  we  might  naturally 
hope  to  find  some  such  vicarious  or  representative  authority 
as  would,  and  alone  could,  secure  them  in  the  Church."  (215, 
6.)  I  have  troubled  you,  brethren,  with  this  passage,  simply 
for  the  purpose  of  proving,  by  Dr.  Wiseman's  own  plain  ad- 
mission, that  the  form  of  government  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  a  monarchy,  of  which  Christ  is  truly  the  eternal  King,  but 
of  which  the  Pope,  as  Christ's  vicegerent,  is  the  earthly  or 
temporal  sovereign.  Now  in  contradistinction  from  this,  we 
maintain  that  the  Church  is  indeed  a  kingdom  in  its  spiritual 
relation  to  Christy  but  in  no  other  respect  whatever;  that  in 
its  earthly  organization  it  is  designed  to  form,  not  a  kingdom, 
but  a  vast  republic,  the  Scriptures  containing  its  constitution 
and  its  laws,  the  bishops  and  the  clergy  in  their  several  dis- 


92  EVIDENCE 

tricts  being  the  instructors  and  the  judges,  while  the  rights  of 
the  people  are  secured  by  the  universal  principle,  that  no  one 
can  be  appointed  either  as  instructor  or  judge,  until  he  is  freely 
approved  by  themselves.  I  mention  this  strong  distinction  now, 
because  it  forms  the  great  dividing  line  between  the  two  sys- 
tems, so  far  as  the  mere  question  of  government  is  concerned. 
The  error  of  the  Roman  doctrine  becomes  of  far  more  serious 
consequence,  when  it  is  considered  as  a  point  of  faith,  essential 
to  salvation. 

We  are  next  to  enter  upon  the  evidence  which  our  learned 
advocate  relies  on,  to  justify  his  definition.  "  The  pre-emi- 
nence claimed  by  Roman  Catholics  for  the  bishop  of  Rome  or 
the  Pope,"  saith  he,  "  being  based  upon  the  circumstance  that 
he  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  it  follows,  that  the  right  where- 
by that  claim  is  supported  must  naturally  depend  upon  the 
demonstration,  that  the  apostle  was  possessed  of  such  a  supe- 
rior authority  and  jurisdiction.  First,  then,  we  must  examine 
whether  St.  Peter  was  invested  by  our  Saviour  with  a  superi- 
ority, not  merely  of  dignity,  but  of  jurisdiction  also,  over  the 
rest  of  the  apostles;  and  if  so,  we  must  further  determine, 
whether  this  was  merely  a  pei^onal  prerogative,  or  such  as 
was  necessarily  transmitted  to  his  successors  to  the  end  of  time." 

According  to  this  division  of  his  argument.  Dr.  Wiseman 
proceeds  to  allege  the  text,  as  proof  that  the  authority  in 
question  was  conferred  by  our  Saviour  on  St.  Peter.  "  Whom 
say  ye  that  I  am?"  saith  our  Lord  to  his  apostles.  "Simon 
Peter  answering  said.  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God.  And  Jesus  answering,  said  to  him :  Blessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Bar-jona,  because  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to 
thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  to  thee, 
that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  whatso- 
ever thou  shall  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in 


EXAMINED.  93 

heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  it  shall  be 
loosed  also  in  heaven."  It  may  be  proper  to  repeat,  brethren, 
by  the  way,  that  not  only  this  passage,  but  every  other  quota- 
tion from  Scripture  in  this  lecture,  is  taken  from  the  Roman 
version,  commonly  called  the  Doway  Bible. 

There  is  another  text  referred  to,  in  addition  to  this,  where, 
according  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  our  Saviour,  after  his 
resurrection,  asked  Peter  three  times  whether  he  loved  him, 
and  three  times  gave  him  a  charge  to  feed  his  sheep  and  his 
lambs;  meaning,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  professes  to  believe, 
the  whole  flock — apostles  and  all.  Some  considerable  patience 
and  attention  will  be  necessary  to  understand  the  argument, 
which,  out  of  these  materials,  professes  to  construct  the  mighty 
fabric  of  papal  supremacy. 

The  first  branch  of  the  evidence  is  derived  from  the  name 
Peter,  given  by  our  Lord  to  the  apostle.  Our  learned  ad- 
vocate asserts  that  it  signifies  the  same  thing  as  the  rock  on 
which  the  Saviour  promises  to  build  his  Church,  because  the 
language  spoken  by  our  Lord  was  Syriac;  and  in  that  lan- 
guage, there  is  but  one  word  to  signify  the  name  of  the  apostle, 
and  a  rock  or  a  stone.  So  that  the  translation,  according  to 
this  notion,  should  be.  Thou  art  a  rock,  and  on  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church,  Hence  Dr.  Wiseman  concludes,  that 
the  rock  on  which  the  Church  was  to  be  built,  was  Peter,  per- 
sonally and  individually;  and  this  he  calls  the  first  prerogative 
of  the  apostle. 

Now  in  answer  to  this,  I  would  observe,  in  the  first  place, 
that  we  do  not  know  whether  our  Saviour  spake  in  Syriac,  or 
in  Chaldee.  If  in  the  latter,  then  there  are  two  words,  {kiph 
and  kipha)  instead  of  one,  just  as  there  are  in  the  original 
Greek,  and  likewise  in  their  own  Latin  Vulgate.  It  may  next 
be  observed,  that  the  assertion  is  made  in  the  very  face  of  the 
Greek  original,  as  well  as  their  own  Latin  version,  where  the 
word  signifying  Peter,  and  that  which  signifies  the  rock,  are 


94  THE  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENT 

indeed  from  the  same  root,  but  vary  nevertheless  both  in  gender 
and  in  termination.  The  word  translated  Peter,  means  properly 
a  stone,  and  we  grant,  most  readily,  that  the  apostle  was 
a  principal  foundation-stone  in  the  building  of  the  Church. 
But  the  rock  on  which  Peter  himself,  together  with  the  whole 
Church,  was  built,  is  the  Rock  of  ages,  the  rock  Christ,  the 
rock  which  Peter  confessed,  when  he  said  "Thou  art  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

In  order  to  understand  this  matter  thoroughly,  however,  it 
must  be  observed,  that  the  passage  is  figurative,  or  metaphori- 
cal ;  and  therefore,  according^to  the  cardinal  rule  of  interpre- 
tation, it  must  be  interpreted  in  strict  consistency  with  the 
subjects  of  the  Saviour's  promise,  which  are  two ;  namely, 
Peter  and  the  Church.  With  regard  to  the  Church,  it  is  often 
called  in  Scripture,  a  spiritual  temple,  a  building  fitly  framed 
together  in  the  Lord.  Being  a  divine  structure,  it  can  stand  on 
none  other  than  a  divine  foundation,  upon  the  rock  of  God's 
own  infinite  love  and  mercy  in  Christ.  "  Therefore,  behold," 
saith  the  Lord  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  "  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a 
foundation  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner  stone,  a 
sure  foundation."  (Is.  xxviii.  16.)  Which  text  the  Roman 
expositors  allow  to  mean  none  but  the  Redeemer.  "  No  one 
can  lay  another  foundation  but  that  which  is  laid,"  saith  St. 
Paul,  (1  Cor.  iii.  11,)  "which  is  Christ  Jesus."  "Be  you," 
saith  St.  Peter  himself,  "as  living  stones  built  up,  a  spiritual 
house,  a  holy  priesthood."  (1  Pet.  ii.  5.)  In  these  pas- 
sages we  see  the  Church,  the  spiritual  temple,  constructed  of 
all  the  people  of  God  as  living  stones,  and  resting  upon  Christ, 
the  eternal  rock,  as  their  sure  foundation.  Thus  far  the  figure 
is  consistent  and  plain.  Now  when  we  look  from  the  Church, 
to  the  individual  case  of  Peter,  it  is  obvious  that  he  must  have 
been  himself  one  of  these  lively  stones  in  this  spiritual  house: 
for  otherwise,  being  personally  a  sinner  like  the  rest,  he  could 
not  have  been  a  partaker  of  Christ's  salvation.     But  surely  it 


EXAMINED.  95 

would  be  absurd  to  say,  that  the  foundation  on  which  a  build- 
ing stands,  can  be,  at  the  same  time,  a  stone  in  the  wall  of  the 
building.  And  therefore  we  may  perceive,  that  it  is  totally  in- 
consistent with  the  figure  which  our  Lord  employed,  to  regard 
Peter  as  being  a  lively  stone  in  the  edifice  of  the  Church,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  consider  him  as  the  rock  which  sustained 
the  whole.  In  a  secondary  sense,  however,  the  word  founda- 
tion is  applied  to  signify  the  lower  parts  of  a  building;  those 
which  are  first  laid  down,  and  on  which  the  superstructure  is 
designed  to  be  erected.  And  in  this  sense  it  would  be  totally 
irreconcilable  with  the  correct  structure  of  the  metaphor,  to 
talk  of  but  one  stone  for  the  whole  building.  The  principal 
foundation  was  one,  for  it  was  the  Rock — Christ  Jesus.  But 
the  secondary  foundation  could  not  be  one  stone,  but  many. 
Hence  we  read  that  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  "looked 
for  a  city  that  hath  foundations,''^  (Heb.  xi.  10,)  viz:  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem,  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God.  And 
accordingly  the  wall  of  this  new  Jerusalem  is  described  in  the 
book  of  the  Revelations,  (xxi.  14,)  as  having  "  twelve  founda- 
tions, and  in  them,  the  twelve  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of 
the  Lamb."  Now  here  we  have  the  very  word  applied  by  St. 
John  himself,  not  to  Peter  only,  but  to  the  whole  twelve  of 
the  apostles;  and  ahhough  it  may  be  readily  allowed  that 
the  honour  of  being  the  first  stone  laid  in  the  foundation 
belongs  to  Peter,  yet  that  is  a  very  difierent  matter  from  having 
the  whole  Church,  apostles  and  all,  built  upon  him  alone. 

Thus  much  may  suffice,  for  the  present,  upon  the  text,  so 
far  as  it  regards  the  name  of  Peter,  and  the  rock  of  his  faith 
and  confession,  Christ.  There  are  other  considerations  to  be 
mentioned  by  and  by,  which  will  show  that  this  is  the  only 
consistent  meaning.  But  let  us  pass  on  to  examine  the  next 
prerogative  granted  to  him;  "I  will  give  to  thee,"  saith  our 
Lord,  "  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven ;  and 


96  THE    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT 

whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also 
in  heaven." 

Our  learned  advocate  takes  considerable  pains  to  prove,  that 
this  text  imports  certain  powers  of  authority  and  government 
over  the  Church.  And  we  dispute  it  not.  The  words  are  too 
strong  and  clear  to  admit  of  controversy.  But  whether  these 
powers  were  peculiar  to  Peter,  and  especially  whether  they 
were  designed  to  give  him  a  supremacy  over  the  other  apostles, 
are  very  different  things,  which  can  by  no  means  be  proved 
by  the  passage  in  question.  For  we  must  carefully  observe 
that  our  Saviour  does  not  say  "  I  give  thee,"  but  *'  I  will  give 
thee,"  plainly  marking  a  promise  to  be  fulfilled  at  some  future 
time.  A  grant,  precisely  similar  in  substance,  is  made  by 
our  Lord  a  little  afterwards  to  all  the  others,  (xviii.  ch.  of 
Matt.)  in  these  words;  "Amen,  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever 
you  shall  bind  upon  earth  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven;  and 
whatsoever  you  shall  loose  upon  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in 
heaven."  And  the  fulfilment  of  these  promises  is  recorded  by 
all  the  evangelists,  although  the  promise  made  to  Peter  is  men- 
tioned by  St.  Matthew  only.  And  here,  brethren,  I  must  ask 
your  particular  attention  to  a  fact  commonly  overlooked  in 
this  argument,  and  yet  in  my  mind  conclusive  as  to  the  true 
sense  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  the  fact  that  our  Saviour's  per- 
sonal ministry  was  of  necessity  confined  to  the  Jews,  until  the 
offering  of  his  great  atonement  for  the  whole  world.  Hence 
he  declares  so  clearly :  "  I  am  not  sent  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel."  And  consequently,  in  the  first  commis- 
sion given  to  his  apostles  he  expressly  saith,  (Matt.  x.  5.) 
"  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  the  cities  of  the 
Samaritans  enter  not.  But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel;  and  going,  preach,  saying.  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand."  But  after  his  precious  sacrifice  was  com- 
pleted,  and  he  had  arisen  in  triumph  from  the  dead,  the  field 
was  gloriously  enlarged.     "  All  power,"  saith  he  to  his  apos- 


EXAMINED.  97 

ties,  "  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  And  the  full 
commission  is  now  hestotced  upon  them  which  had  been  p?'o- 
mised  long  before,  "  Go  ye  into  the  whole  world  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature."  We  see  from  this,  distinctly, 
that  the  words  addressed  to  Peter  in  the  first  instance,  could 
not  have  been  intended  to  confer  upon  him  at  that  time  any 
immediate  privilege  of  government  in  the  Catholic  or  Univer- 
sal Church,  because  the  Church  in  its  enlarged  and  Catholic 
aspect  was  not  committed  to  them  until  after  the  Saviour's 
resurrection.  And  hence  it  follows,  that  as  the  promise  must 
of  necessity  be  referred  to  a  subsequent  fulfilment,  the  fulfil- 
ment itself  must  be  taken  as  its  only  certain  interpreter ;  for 
that  which  Christ  did^  we  may  be  quite  sure,  was  the  very 
thing  which  he  had  promised  to  do. 

Now  although,  as  I  have  stated,  the  actual  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  by  the  grant  of  the  apostolic  commission,  is  carefully 
recorded  by  all  the  evangelists,  yet  its  detail  is  most  complete 
■in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  And  there  we  read  it  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms :  "  As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,"  saith  the  Sa- 
viour, "  I  also  send  you.  When  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed 
on  them;  and  he  said  to  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost: 
Whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them.  And 
whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they  are  retained.'^''  Here  then, 
we  have  the  whole  extent  of  the  high  and  holy  authority  which 
constituted  the  apostles  the  ambassadors  of  heaven.  "  As  the 
Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you."  Not  a  promise  for  the 
future,  "  /  ivill  send,^^  or  "  /  will  give,''^  but  "  I  do  send, 
NOW."  And  the  power  is  forthwith  conferred,  without  which 
the  commission  could  never  have  been  executed.  He  breathes 
on  them  and  saith:  ^^  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,''"'  The 
spiritual  work  requires  the  spiritual  faculty,  and  both  are  pro- 
vided for  in  their  appointed  season.  We  see  therefore  in  this, 
the  whole  explanation  of  the  matter.  No  separate  commission 
is  granted  to  Peter.     The  promise  was  made  at  one  period  to 

K 


98  THE    SCBIPTURAL    ARGUMENT 

him,  and  at  another  to  his  brethren,  but  all  are  united  in  the 
ONE  FULFILMENT,  all  receivc  the  same  authority,  all  become 
foundations  in  the  spiritual  building — the  Church  of  God. 

As  for  the  other  text,  where  our  Lord  asks  Peter  three  times, 
whether  he  loves  him,  and  receiving  each  time  an  affirmative 
answer,  (John  xxi.  15,  &c.)  charges  the  penitent  apostle 
thrice,  to  feed  his  sheep  and  his  lambs,  there  really  seems  to 
be  nothing  in  it,  on  which  it  would  be  possible  to  found  an  ar- 
gument for  Peter's  supremacy.  And  yet  the  advocates  for  the 
prerogatives  of  the  pope  imagine,  that  in  these  words  our  Lord 
committed  the  whole  Church,  apostles  and  all,  to  the  peculiar 
care  of  Peter.  It  is  not  a  little  interesting  to  observe  how  very 
different  a  construction  Peter  himself  puts  upon  his  office,  when 
giving,  in  his  first  epistle,  (v.  ch.  1,  2,  3,)  a  similar  charge. 
"  The  ancients  therefore,"  saith  he,  "  that  are  among  you,  I 
beseech,  who  am  myself  also  an  ancient,  and  a  witness  of 
Christ,  as  also  a  partaker  of  that  glory  which  is  to  be  revealed 
in  time  to  come,  feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 
taking  care  thereof,  not  by  constraint  but  willingly,  according 
to  God,  neither  for  the  sake  of  filthy  lucre,  but  voluntarily; 
neither  as  domineering  over  the  clergy,  but  being  made  a  pat- 
tern of  the  flock  from  the  heart.  And  when  the  Prince  of  pas- 
tors shall  appear,  you  shall  receive  a  never  fading  crown  of 
glory."  Here  the  apostle,  according  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
theory,  and  the  practice  of  the  popes  who  call  themselves  his 
successors,  ought  to  have  reminded  the  elders  of  his  sovereign 
authority.  Instead  of  saying,  "I  beseech  you,  who  am  also 
an  ancient  and  a  witness  of  Christ,"  he  should  have  said:  "  I 
exhort  you,  who  am  the  supreme  ruler  and  vicegerent  of  Christ, 
to  whose  charge  and  government  you  are  all  committed." 
Setting  aside  the  forced  and  unnatural  construction,  however, 
which  Dr.  Wiseman  and  his  brethren  endeavour  to  put  upon 
the  narrative  of  St.  John,  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  St. 
Peter  at  the  time  will  readily  point  out  the  true  meaning.     He 


EXAMINED.  99 

had  thrice  denied  his  Master — the  only  one  of  the  eleven  who 
had  so  deeply  disgraced  his  apostolic  character.  And  his  com- 
passionate Lord  kindly  affords  him  the  opportunity  to  make 
three  professions  of  his  love,  in  order  to  wipe  out  the  humilia- 
tion of  his  three  denials.  And  still  farther  to  show  that  the 
Saviour  had  fully  restored  him  to  favour,  He  gives  him  the 
apostolic  charge  to  feed  his  sheep,  which  is  the  indispensable 
duty  of  every  pastor.  As  to  the  expression  from  which  our 
learned  advocate  would  fain  draw  an  inference  of  favour, 
"lovest  thou  me  more  than  these?"  it  is  surely  enough  for  us 
to  remember  the  principle  laid  down  by  the  Redeemer,  in  the 
case  of  another  flagrant  but  penitent  transgressor :  "  Many 
sins  are  forgiven  her,  because  she  hath  loved  much.''''  (Luke 
vii.  47.) 

There  are  a  number  of  minor  arguments  which  our  Roman 
advocates  are  in  the  habit  of  advancing  in  favour  of  St.  Peter's 
supremacy;  and  although  at  the  risk  of  wearying  you,  my 
brethren,  I  am  desirous  to  examine  them  all,  before  I  turn  to 
the  decisive  contradiction  which  other  portions  of  the  Sacred 
Volume  seem  to  furnish  against  the  papal  doctrine.  One  of  these 
arguments  is  derived  from  the  statement  of  St.  John,  that  our 
Saviour  gave  St.  Peter  a  new  name  when  he  was  first  brought 
to  him  by  his  brother  Andrew:  (John  i.  42)  "Thou  shalt  be 
called  Cephas,  which  is  interpreted,  Peter."  And  Dr.  Wiseman 
ingeniously  compares  it  to  the  cases  of  Abram  and  Jacob,  be- 
cause the  new  name  given  to  the  first,  imported,  that  Abraham 
.  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  and  the  appellation  con- 
ferred upon  the  second  signified,  that  the  patriarch  should  be  a 
prince  with  God.  And  hence,  if  his  readers  could  be  induced 
to  think  that  Peter's  name  was  intended  to  signify  that  he 
should  be  the  spiritual  father  of  the  world  and  the  prince  of 
the  whole  Church,  it  would  undoubtedly  be  a  great  point 
gained  towards  the  doctrine  of  the  pope's  supremacy. 

But  the  simple  truth  is,  that  in  Scripture,  the  giving  a  new 


100  THE    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT 

name  is  only  the  designation  of  the  character,  according  to  the 
design  of  God,  whether  it  be  for  honour  or  dishonour.  Thus 
in  the  book  of  Hosea,  (i.  4,  6,  9,)  we  read  that  The  Lord  gave 
names  to  the  three  children  of  the  prophet.  His  wife  bore 
a  son,  "And  the  Lord  said  to  him,  call  his  name  Jezrahel,  for 
yet  a  Httle  while  and  I  will  visit  the  blood  of  Jezrahel  upon 
the  house  of  Jehu,  and  I  will  cause  to  cease  the  kingdom  of 
Israel."  Again  she  bore  a  daughter,  and  he  said  to  him,  "Call 
her  name  Lo-ruhamah,"  (which  signifies,  without  mercy,) 
"  for  I  will  not  add  any  more  to  have  mercy  on  the  house  of 
Israel,  but  will  utterly  forget  them."  And  again  she  bore  a 
son.  "And  he  said,  call  his  name  Lo-ammi,"  (which  signifies, 
not  my  peo^Ze,)  "  for  you  are  not  my  people,  and  I  will  not  be 
your  God."  We  see  from  this,  of  which  there  are  many  other 
examples,  that  the  giving  of  a  name  is  not  always  an  indication 
of  privilege  or  favour,  but  sometimes  the  very  contrary;  and 
therefore  it  results,  that  each  case  must  be  viewed  in  connexion 
with  its  own  circumstances,  and  be  interpreted  accordingly. 
Now  in  compliance  with  this  plain  rule  of  justice,  let  the  name 
given  to  Peter  be  considered  in  the  light  of  his  ov/n  Gospel, 
that  is,  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  for  I  have  already  had  occa- 
sion to  mention,  that  this  Gospel  was  universally  regarded  by 
the  ancient  fathers  as  being  the  substance  of  the  preaching  of 
St.  Peter,  as  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  was  of  the  preaching  of 
St.  Paul.  In  the  3d  ch.  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  then,  we  have 
it  written,  with  great  brevity  and  simplicity,  (v.  16,  17)  that 
our  Lord  "gave  to  Simon  the  name  of  Peter;  and  James,  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  and  John,  the  brother  of  James,  he  named 
Boanerges,  which  is  The  sons  of  thunder,''^  Here,  therefore, 
brethren,  we  have  St.  Peter's  own  account  of  this  matter.  On 
his  own  name  he  does  not  dwell,  nor  does  he  even  mention  its 
meaning.  While  he  seems  desirous  to  pay  special  regard  to 
James  and  John,  not  only  stating  that  our  Lord  also  gave 
them  names,  but  adding  the  sublime  signification.    And  surely 


EXA31INED.  101 

it  is  obvious,  that  if  any  thing  of  supremacy  or  power  is  to  be 
gathered  from  names  merely,  their  names  were  far  more  likely 
to  bear  that  character  than  Peter's.  To  be  o.  foundation  stone 
in  the  spiritual  building  of  the  Church,  was  indeed  honourable 
and  important,  but  the  thunders  were  the  appropriate  tokens  of 
God's  own  presence  on  Mount  Sinai,  and  were  never  appointed 
to  wait  upon  any  inferior  being.  Indeed  their  most  common 
association  in  Scripture,  is  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
power  of  God.  Thus,  in  the  book  of  Job,  (xxvi.  14)  "Who 
shall  be  able  to  behold  the  thunder  of  his  greatness?"  Again, 
in  the  Psalms,  (civ.  7)  "At  thy  rebuke,  (O  Lord)  they  flee,  at 
the  voice  of  thy  thunder  they  shall  fear."  Again,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  St.  John,  beholding  in  vision  the  throne  of  God, 
(iv.  5)  saith,  that  "from  the  throne  proceeded  lightnings  and 
voices  and  thunderings."  And  again,  (x.  3)  the  mighty  Angel 
whose  description  is  such  as  can  only  belong  to  Christ  him- 
self, (xi.  3)  is  said  to  "  come  down  from  heaven  clothed  with  a 
cloud,  and  a  rainbow  upon  his  head ;  and  his  face  was  as  the 
sun,  and  his  feet  as  pillars  of  fire,  and  he  had  in  his  hand  a 
little  book  open  ;  and  he  set  his  right  foot  upon  the  sea,  and 
his  left  foot  upon  the  land;  and  he  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice, 
as  when  a  lion  roareth,  and  when  he  had  cried  out,  seven 
thunders  uttered  their  voices."  If,  therefore,  the  circumstance 
of  our  Lord's  giving  names  to  his  apostles,  be  indicative  of 
privilege  or  favour,  we  see  that  he  conferred  a  name  on  James 
and  John  as  well  as  on  Peter ;  and  if  power  or  authority  is  to 
be  inferred  from  the  signification  of  the  names,  it  seems  abun- 
dantly manifest  that  the  supremacy  would  be,  not  on  the  side 
of  him  who  was  called  a  foundation  stone,  but  rather  on  that 
of  the  sons  of  thunder. 

Another  class  of  passages  is  often  adduced  by  the  ingenious 
advocates  of  Roman  supremacy,  in  which  Peter  appears  the 
first  to  speak  and  to  act,  as  if  he  were  a  kind  of  leader  amongst 
the  apostles.     Now  it  is  very  true  that  he  was  the  most  for- 

k2 


102  THE    SCRIPTURAL    ARGU3IENT 

ward,  ardent,  and  hasty  of  the  apostolic  company,  on  many 
occasions.  Some  of  these  instances  are  to  his  praise,  and 
some  the  contrary.  As  for  example,  that  noted  instance  of 
his  rashness,  (Mat.  xvi.  22,  23)  where  he  undertook  to  rebuke 
his  Lord,  contradicting  the  express  prediction  of  the  Saviour 
by  saying :  "  Lord,  be  it  far  from  thee;  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee. 
But  he,  turning,  said  unto  Peter:  Go  after  me,  Satan,  thou  art 
a  scandal  unto  me,  because  thou  dost  not  relish  the  things  that 
are  of  God,  but  the  things  that  are  of  men."  In  this  text, 
truly,  the  Roman  expositors  of  the  Doway  Bible  admit  that  the 
language  might  be  translated,  "Begone  from  me,"  or  as  our 
version  has  it,  "  Get  thee  behind  wie,"  instead  of  "  Go  after 
me,  Satan."  I  quote  their  own  Scriptures,  however,  as  I  have 
promised,  in  order  to  do  their  argument  all  the  justice  in  my 
power.  But  even  when  the  passage  is  thus  softened,  it  is 
abundantly  plain  that  St.  Peter  acted  with  singular  temerity, 
and  received  a  proportionate  rebuke.  Nor  was  the  besetting 
sin  of  the  warm-hearted  apostle  cured,  even  by  this  sharp 
reproof.  For  again,  in  the  night  before  the  crucifixion,  when 
our  Lord  kindly  predicts  Peter's  approaching  denial,  he  refuses 
to  believe  the  warning,  and  proud  in  his  own  self-confidence, 
falls  into  the  snare  of  the  tempter,  at  the  very  time  when  he 
thought  himself  ready  to  go  with  his  divine  Master  to  prison 
and  to  death. 

That  St.  Peter,  therefore,  should  be  a  kind  of  leader  amongst 
the  rest,  is  nothing  strange,  when  we  behold  these  proofs  of 
his  ardent  temper,  and  remember  that  he  is  also  supposed  to 
have  been  the  oldest  of  the  band,  and  perhaps  the  only  one 
who  was  at  that  time  married.  But  if  this  were  all  for  which 
our  Roman  brethren  contended,  we  should  not  think  it  worth 
while  to  dispute  the  matter.  Any  one  that  carefully  reads  the 
Gospels  will  see,  indeed,  that  there  was  no  regular  leader,  no 
appointed  spokesman,  and  nothing  like  an  order  of  rank  or 
precedency  established  amongst  the  apostles,  while  their  Lord 


EXAMINED.  103 

was  with  them.  And  yet,  if  it  had  been  otherwise,  what 
would  it  prove  for  Peter's  supremacy?  Absokitely  nothing. 
He  that  occupies  the  first  place  amongst  his  equals,  surely 
does  not  thereby  assert  that  he  has  any  authority  over  them. 
What  dominion  has  the  presiding  judge  of  a  court,  or  the  fore- 
man of  a  jury,  or  the  chairman  of  a  committee,  or  the  file- 
leader  of  a  band  of  soldiers,  over  those  who  act  with  them? 
Manifestly  none  whatever.  Questions  of  authoritative  rule  and 
government  are  never  placed  on  such  a  trifling  ground  as  mere 
precedency,  even  in  the  offices  of  earth.  How  much  less 
should  we  be  willing  to  admit  so  weak  an  evidence  of  supre- 
macy, amongst  the  apostolic  ministry  of  the  Gospel ! 

The  next  argument  of  Dr.  Wiseman  has  more  apparent 
force,  namely,  that  our  blessed  Saviour  promised  to  Peter  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  this  promise  imports 
dominion,  and  that  it  was  given  to  him  alone. 

To  this  we  answer,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  of  which 
our  Lord  promised  Peter  the  keys,  signified  the  Church  mili- 
tant on  earth,  which  is  indeed  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  because 
it  consists  of  those  who  acknowledge  the  King  of  heaven  for 
their  Sovereign,  whose  Son  is  their  Redeemer,  whose  Spirit  is 
their  Sanctifier,  whose  Word  is  their  law,  and  whose  promised 
glory  is  the  recompense  of  their  celestial  reward.  And  thus 
we  read  of  the  application  of  the  phrase  continually.  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  compared  to  ten  virgins  who  took  their 
lamps  to  meet  the  bridegroom,  and  five  of  them  were  wise,  and 
five  were  foolish.  Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto 
a  net  cast  into  the  sea,  in  which  were  bad  fish  as  well  as  good. 
Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  field,  in  which  an 
enemy  sowed  tares  among  the  wheat ;  in  all  which  compari- 
sons our  Lord  plainly  points  out  the  Church  on  earth,  which 
contains  the  good  and  the  evil,  the  true  and  the  false;  whereas 
the  Church  above,  the  new  Jerusalem,  will  contain  none  but 
the  holy  and  the  pure.      Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 


104  THE    SCRIPTURAL    ARGUMENT 

likened  to  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  which,  when  it  is  sown,  is 
the  least  of  all  seeds,  but  afterwards  becometh  a  great  tree,  so 
that  the  fowls  of  the  air  can  lodge  amono-  the  branches :  which 
points  out  the  small  beginning  of  the  Church  in  the  hands  of 
the  apostles,  and  its  subsequent  increase  to  its  present  magni- 
tude. But  neither  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  the 
future  world,  nor  yet  the  keys  of  the  bottomless  abyss,  have 
ever  been  consigned  to  mortal  hand.  Hence,  in  our  Lord's 
own  description  of  the  final  day  of  account,  it  is  not  St.  Peter 
but  himself  that  occupies  the  throne  of  judgment;  and  the  divi- 
sion of  mankind  into  the  two  great  ranks  of  the  sheep  and  the 
goats,  or  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  is  not  made  by  the 
apostle,  but  by  the  angels  of  God.  And  in  like  manner  we 
read  in  the  x\pocalypse,  that  St.  John,  in  vision,  beheld  the 
Saviour,  (1  ch.  17)  and  heard  him  saying,  "Fear  not,  I  am 
the  First  and  the  Last,  and  alive  and  was  dead,  and  behold  I 
am  living  for  ever  and  ever,  and  have  the  keys  of  death  and 
of  hell,''''  Again  we  read,  (ch.  iii.  7)  "  These  things  saith  the 
Holy  One  and  the  True  One,  who  hath  the  hey  of  David: 
He  that  openeth  and  no  man  shutteth,  shutteth  and  no  man 
openeth.^^  Here  then,  we  see,  that  the  keys  promised  to  Peter 
could  only  have  been  the  keys  of  the  Church  below — the 
kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth ;  since  about  sixty  years  after 
our  Lord's  resurrection,  as  all  agree,  the  Saviour  expressly 
declares  to  St.  John,  that  the  keys  of  death  and  hell,  and  the 
key  of  David,  which  is  the  key  of  heavenly  glory,  are  in  his 
own  hands. 

This  being  distinctly  understood,  we  are  prepared  to  inter- 
pret, without  any  danger  of  error,  the  precise  character  of  the 
keys  promised  to  Peter.  For  it  is  exactly  tantamount  to  the 
apostolic  power  of  establishing  the  Church,  by  preaching  the 
faith,  on  which,  as  on  a  rock,  the  Church  was  founded;  pre- 
scribing its  laws,  rules,  forms,  and  discipline;  opening  the  door 
of  the  Church  in  baptism,  shutting  it  in  excommunication,  and 


EXAMINED.  105 

regulating  it  in  every  point  of  order  which  its  prosperity  re- 
quired ;  tor  all  of  which,  as  has  been  already  stated,  the  apostles 
had  the  special  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  in  all  of  which, 
although  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  undoubtedly  held  a  certain 
pre-eminence,  yet  the  power  of  the  keys  and  the  authority  of 
the  apostolate  was  one  and  the  same. 

The  last  allegation  that  requires  notice,  brethren,  is  the  pro- 
mise of  our  Lord,  that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
the  Church,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  promise  to  build  that 
Church  on  the  rock — which  rock  our  Roman  Catholic  advo- 
cate imagines  to  be  the  person  of  the  apostle  Peter,  instead  of 
the  faith  which  he  possessed.  But  it  is  perfectly  obvious,  that 
these  words  cannot  afford  any  aid  in  settling  the  point  in  con- 
troversy. We  all  acknowledge  that  while  the  Church  is  built 
upon  the  rock,  the  gates  or  the  powers  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  The  question  whether  the  rock  is  Christ,  or  Peter, 
is  the  point  at  issue,  and  remains  just  as  it  was  before. 

I  have  now  discussed  the  evidence  of  Scripture,  on  which 
Dr.  Wiseman,  in  common  with  every  Roman  Catholic,  rests 
the  claim  of  St.  Peter  to  be  considered  the  prince,  the  pastor, 
and  the  ruler  of  the  other  apostles  and  of  the  whole  Church 
of  Christ.  And  the  remainder  of  our  lecture  will  be  devoted 
to  another  class  of  passages,  which  to  my  mind,  seem  at  war 
with  their  doctrine.  I  am,  indeed,  by  no  means  free  from  fear, 
brethren,  that  so  minute  and  prolonged  an  examination  may 
weary  you ;  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  question  is 
vital  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  their  esteem,  this  doctrine 
constitutes  a  point  of  faith,  which  cannot  be  rejected  tvithout 
peril  of  damnation.  And  therefore,  in  love  to  them,  and  in 
Christian  affection  for  their  spiritual  welfare,  as  well  as  in 
justice  to  our  blessed  reformers,  we  ought  to  feel  a  lively  inte- 
rest in  all  that  belongs  to  the  discussion. 

In  the  first  place  then,  we  remark,  that  if  the  Church  of 
our  Lord  was  really  designed  to  be  founded  on  the  person  of 


106  SCRIPTURAL    EVIDE]VCE 

Peter,  so  that  on  this  depended  the  fiilfih-nent  of  the  promise, 
that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  it,  we  should 
expect  to  find  the  doctrine  often  repeated,  placed  in  the  clearest 
and  the  strongest  light,  and  especially  set  forth  by  Peter  him- 
self and  the  other  apostles. 

Instead  of  which,  the  text  which  is  mainly  relied  upon  is 
a  single  text,  occurring  only  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  not 
adverted  to  by  Mark,  Luke  or  John  ;  nor  is  there  any  refer- 
ence to  the  doctrine  in  all  the  acts  of  the  apostles,  nor  any  in 
the  fourteen  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  general  epistle  of  St. 
James,  the  two  epistles  of  St.  Peter  himself,  the  epistle  of  St. 
Jude,  the  three  epistles  of  St.  John,  and  the  Apocalypse  or 
book  of  the  Revelations.  I  do  not  say  that  the  text  is  the  less 
true,  because  it  occurs  but  once.  God  forbid !  But  I  do  say, 
that  whereas  the  article  is  maintained  to  be  a  cardinal  part  of 
the  faith,  and  one  which  must  have  been  brought  into  constant 
practical  operation  if  the  Roman  view  of  it  be  true,  it  is  unac- 
countable that  we  should  never  see  it  stated  but  once,  and  that, 
as  I  trust  I  have  shown,  in  a  manner  which  admits  of  a  very 
different  explication. 

Manifest  it  is,  that  if  the  Saviour  designed  St.  Peter  to  have 
been  the  prince,  ruler  and  governor  of  the  other  apostles  and 
of  the  whole  Church,  St.  Peter  himself  must  have  known  the 
fact,  and  felt  it  to  be  his  solemn  duty  to  make  it  known  to 
others.  How  is  it,  then,  that  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel — the  Gos- 
pel which  is  universally  acknowledged  to  contain  the  preach- 
ing of  St.  Peter — there  is  not  one  word  about  the  matter? 
Again,  we  have  two  epistles  of  St.  Peter's  own  writing,  in 
which  ingenuity  itself  cannot  find  one  word  that  can  be  twisted 
into  the  shape  of  superior  authority.  The  first  begins  thus : 
"  Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  strangers  dispersed 
throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bilhynia." 
The  second  commences  in  a  similar  style :  "Simon  Peter,  a 
servant  and  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  them  who  have 


AGAINST  Peter's  supremacy.  107 

obtained  equal  faith  with  us,"  addressed,  doubtless,  to  the  same 
persons  as  the  former  one,  because,  in  the  3d  cliapter  of  it  he 
saith,  "Behold,  this  is  the  second  epistle  I  write  to  you,  my 
dearly  beloved."  In  contrast  with  this,  we  have  a  Catholic 
or  general  epistle  from  the  pen  of  the  apostle  Jude,  and  ano- 
ther from  the  apostle  James.  Why,  if  Peter  supposed  himself 
the  ruler  of  the  whole  Church,  did  not  he  leave  behind  him  at 
least  some  Catholic  or  general  epistles?  St.  John,  the  other 
son  of  thunder,  addresses  Christians  by  the  name,  sometimes, 
of  Little  chilch'en,  sometimes,  Infants,  sometimes.  Fathers; 
but  his  favourite  title  is  Little  children.  Whereas  St.  Peter 
only  uses  one  appellation,  and  that  is.  Brethren.  St.  Paul 
speaks  strongly  of  discipline,  of  the  delivering  of  men  unto 
Satan  that  they  may  learn  not  to  blaspheme,  and  of  his  apos- 
tolic rod;  but  there  is  not  a  word  of  all  this  in  the  two  epistles 
of  him,  who  is  imagined  to  be  the  prince,  the  ruler,  the  very 
VICEGERENT  OF  Christ.  How  could  this  be  so,  if  St.  Peter 
were  what  the  Church  of  Rome  supposes? 

But  this  is  far  from  being  the  whole  of  the  Scriptural  evi- 
dence against  this  claim.  For  we  read,  in  the  Gospels,  of 
many  occasions,  on  which  the  apostles  disputed  who  should 
be  the  greatest;  from  which  it  is  manifest,  that  this  very  ques- 
tion of  supremacy  was  frequently  discussed  amongst  them, 
and  in  every  instance  our  blessed  Lord  discouraged  it,  and  in- 
culcated an  humble  equality.  Thus,  (Matt.  xx.  25)  when  the 
mother  of  James  and  John  desired  a  superior  place  for  her 
children,  and  the  other  apostles  were  moved  with  indignation, 
we  read,  that  "Jesus  called  them  to  him  and  said;  you  know 
that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over  them;  and  they 
that  are  the  greater  exercise  power  upon  them.  It  shall  not 
he  so  among  you;  but  whosoever  will  be  the  greater  among 
you,  let  him  be  your  minister;  and  he  who  would  be  the  first 
among  you,  shall  be  your  servant." 

Again,  (Matt,  xxiii.  8)  warning  his  apostles  against  the  love 


108  SCRIPTURAL    EVIDENCE 

of  superior  station,  he  saith :  "  Be  ye  not  called  Rabbi :  for 
one  is  your  Master,  and  all  ye  are  brethren,'''' 

Again,  (Luke  ix.  46)  we  read,  that  "there  entered  a 
thought  into  them,  which  of  them  should  be  the  greater.  But 
Jesus,  seeing  the  thoughts  of  their  heart,  took  a  child  and  set 
him  by  him;  and  said  to  them;  Whosoever  shall  receive  this 
child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me;  and  whosoever  shall  receive 
me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me.  For  he  that  is  the  least 
among  you  all,  he  is  the  greatest." 

Again,  (Luke  xxi.  24)  "There  was  a  strife  amongst  them, 
which  of  them  should  seem  to  be  the  greater.  And  he  said  to 
them:  the  kings  of  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over  them,  and  they 
that  have  power  over  them  are  called  benefactors.  But  you 
not  so:  but  he  who  is  the  greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as 
the  least,  and  he  that  is  the  leader  as  he  that  serveth.  For 
which  is  greater,  he  that  sitteth  at  table  or  he  that  serveth? 
Is  not  he  that  sitteth  at  table?  But  I  am  in  the  midst  of  you 
as  he  that  serveth ;  and  you  are  they  who  have  continued  with 
me  in  my  temptations;  and  I  appoint  unto  you,  as  my  Father 
hath  appointed  to  me,  a  kingdom.  That  you  may  eat  and 
drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,  and  may  sit  upon  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel." 

Now  all  these  instances  of  the  apostles'  solicitude  upon  the 
point  of  supremacy,  are  quoted  from  the  Roman  Catholic  ver- 
sion, called  the  Doway  Bible,  and  they  are  all  related  as 
having  occurred  after  the  promise  of  the  keys,  with  the  assu- 
rance that  the  Church  should  be  built  upon  the  rock,  which 
every  Roman  theologian  supposes  to  signify  the  grant  of 
this  supremacy  to  Peter.  So  that  neither  Peter  nor  his  breth- 
ren could  possibly  have  understood  our  Saviour's  words  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  for  if  they 
had,  they  surely  would  not  afterwards  have  disputed  which  of 
them  should  be  the  greatest.  That  point,  at  least,  they  must 
have  looked  upon  as  settled  in  Peter's  favour,  and  have  treated 


AGAINST  Peter's  supremacy.  109 

him  with  deference  accordingly.  Neither  does  it  seem  to  me 
that  the  various  reproofs  of  our  Lord  are  consistent  with  the 
Roman  interpretation;  for  on  that  ground,  would  he  not  have 
rebuked  their  want  of  acquiescence  in  his  declared  will,  and 
have  reminded  them  that  he  had  constituted  Peter  their  gover- 
nor and  chief  already? 

Passing  on  from  the  Gospels  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Peter  appears  prominently  on  several  important  occasions,  as 
a  speaker,  a  preacher,  and  a  worker  of  miracles;  but  in  no 
instance  does  he  assert  or  exercise  any  superior  power  or  do- 
minion. So  far  from  it,  that  on  some  of  these,  he  looks  hke 
one  more  ruled  than  ruling.  Thus,  when  the  conversion  of 
the  Samaritans,  through  the  ministry  of  Philip,  was  made 
known  to  the  apostles  who  were  in  Jerusalem,  (Acts  viii.  14) 
''Hhey  sent  to  them  Peter  and  John.^^  Here  is  an  inversion  of 
authority.  Instead  of  Peter  sending  the  other  apostles,  they 
send  him.  Again,  (Acts  xi.  2)  when  Peter  returned  from  the 
conversion  and  baptism  of  Cornelius,  and  was  "come  up  to 
Jerusalem,  they  who  were  of  the  circumcision  disputed  against 
him :"  and  Peter  explains  the  whole  matter,  concluding  by 
saying,  "Who  was  I,  that  I  could  oppose  God?"  Neither  he 
nor  his  accusers  on  this  occasion,  seem  to  have  had  any  notion 
of  his  superior  dignity,  as  the  prince  of  the  apostles  and  vice- 
gerent of  Christ. 

Again,  (Acts  xv.)  we  read,  that  the  apostles  and  elders 
came  together  to  consider  the  question,  whether  the  Gentile 
converts  should  be  bound  by  the  ceremonial  law.  And  this 
is  what  the  Roman  Catholic  doctors  call  the  first  Apostolic 
Council.  But  it  certainly  does  not  appear  that  Peter  sum- 
moned this  Council,  nor  that  he  presided  over  it,  nor  that  he 
opened  the  proceedings,  nor  that  he  framed  its  definitive  de- 
cree, nor  that  he  performed  any  act  of  distinct  approbation; 
nearly  all  of  which  would  have  belonged  to  his  office,  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  theory.     "The  apostles  and  elders  came  to- 

L 


110  SCRIPTURAL    EVIDENCE 

gether,"  saith  the  Scripture.  "When  there  was  much  dis- 
puting, Peter  rose  up,"  and  delivered  his  opinion.  After  he 
had  concluded,  Barnabas  and  Paul  related  "what  great  signs 
and  wonders  God  had  wrought  among  the  Gentiles  by  them." 
"And  after  they  had  held  their  peace,  James  answered,  say- 
ing; men,  brethren,  hear  me.  Simon  hath  told  in  what  man- 
ner God  first  visited  the  Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  people 
to  his  name.  And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets." 
"Wherefore  I  judge,"  continues  the  apostle  James,  "that 
they  who  from  among  the  Gentiles  are  converted  to  God,  are 
not  to  be  disquieted."  ....  "Then  it  pleased  the  apostles  and 
ancients,  with  the  whole  Church,  to  choose  men  of  their  own 
company,  and  to  send  them  to  Antioch,  with  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas, Judas  who  was  surnamed  Barsabas,  and  Silas,  chief  men 
among  the  brethren,  writing  by  their  hand:  The  apostles  and 
ancients,  brethren,  to  the  brethren  of  the  Gentiles,  greeting," 
&c.  Now  throughout  this  whole  important  transaction,  it  is 
impossible  to  reconcile  the  facts  with  the  Roman  doctrine. 
For  had  St.  Peter  been  then  acknowledged  as  the  ruler  and 
chief,  the  vicegerent  of  Christ,  to  whose  care  the  whole 
Church,  apostles  and  all,  had  been  committed,  his  single  judg- 
ment would  have  been  sufficient  without  any  council ;  or  at 
least,  when  the  council  assembled,  he  would  have  presided  in- 
stead of  James,  and  in  the  final  decree,  his  name  would  have 
been  specially  set  forth  as  the  authoritative  ruler  of  the  whole 
matter. 

But  the  evidence  of  Scripture  does  not  rest  here.  We  find 
the  whole  of  the  remaining  portion  of  the  book  of  the  Acts, 
which  is  much  the  greater  part,  devoted  chiefly  to  the  labours 
of  St.  Paul,  and  Peter  is  hardly  named  again.  Nor,  if  we 
take  the  sacred  record  in  its  own  integrity,  does  there  seem 
any  room  to  doubt,  that  if  the  supremacy  of  one  apostle  over 
the  others  had  been  a  part  of  the  divine  system,  the  claim  of 
St.  Paul  to  that  supremacy  would  stand  on  by  far  the  stronger 


AGAINST  Peter's  supremacy.  Ill 

ground.  Peter  was  indeed  called  first,  and  Paul  last;  but  it  is 
altogether  consistent  with  many  other  parts  of  the  divine  eco- 
nomy, that  the  last  should  be  first,  and  that  the  elder  should 
serve  the  younger.  The  call  of  Peter  was  like  that  of  the 
other  apostles;  but  Paul  was  the  subject  of  prophecy,  he  was 
converted  by  a  vision,  and  was  chosen  in  connexion  with  a 
miracle.  His  labours,  his  giits,  his  sufferings,  his  share  in 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  of  which  his  writings 
form  a  larger  portion  than  half  the  other  authors  put  together, 
— his  comprehensive,  deep,  and  wonderful  knowledge  of  divine 
truth — his  being  raised  up  into  heaven,  where  he  heard  things 
not  lawful  for  man  to  utter — take  the  whole  of  this  together, 
brethren,  and  surely  it  cannot  be  disputed,  that  the  weight  of 
Scriptural  evidence  is  greatly  in  his  favour. 

I  shall  add  but  two  observations  more  to  this  protracted  ex- 
amination of  the  Word  of  God,  upon  the  point  before  us.  The 
one  is,  that  St.  Paul  himself  allows  no  supremacy  to  Peter. 
For  this  is  his  language  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians: — 
"James  and  Cephas  and  John,  who  seemed  to  be  pillars,  gave 
to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  that  we 
should  go  to  the  Gentiles  and  they  to  the  circumcision."  Now 
here,  brethren,  we  have  Peter  or  Cephas  named  along  with 
James  and  John,  but  not  named  first,  nor  with  any  kind  of 
distinction.  St.  Paul  merely  says  of  the  whole  three,  that 
they  seemed  to  be  pillars;  and  then  expressly  asserts,  that  he 
and  Barnabas  were  to  go  to  the  Gentiles,  and  Peter  to  the  cir- 
cumcision. Where  is  Peter's  supremacy,  his  government  over 
the  wliole  Church,  his  prerogative  of  authority  as  the  vice- 
gerent of  Christ?  Only  imagine  the  Pope  of  Rome  to  be 
placed  in  this  unceremonious  style  between  two  other  bishops, 
and  the  contrast  presented  by  his  assumption  of  dignity  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  unpretending  equality  of  the  apostle  whose 
successor  he  calls  himself  on  the  other,  will  be  manifest  and 
plain. 


112 


INCONSISTENCY 


The  last  point  which  I  design  to  notice,  is  the  clear  proof 
afforded  by  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  St.  Paul  was  expressly- 
designed,  in  the  order  of  Providence,  to  establish  the  Church 
at  Rome ;  whereas  St.  Peter's  being  there  would  seem  to  have 
been  merely  incidental.  So  that,  on  a  survey  of  the  whole 
Scriptural  evidence,  we  may  surely  conclude,  that  the  doctrine 
of  St.  Peter's  supremacy,  together  with  the  founding  upon  it 
the  dominion  of  the  Pope,  and  the  making  this  dominion  an 
article  of  faith  necessary  to  every  man's  salvation,  presents  a 
combination  of  mistaken  argument  and  melancholy  intolerance, 
of  which  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  affords  no  paral- 
lel, and  which  it  is  impossible  to  reflect  upon  without  the 
strongest  emotions  of  astonishment  and  sorrow. 

You  have  probably  anticipated  the  avowal,  however,  that 
the  kind  of  evidence  on  which  the  advocates  of  Roman  su- 
premacy most  confidently  rely,  is  not  derived  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  from  the  fathers.  And  to  this  branch  of  testimony, 
brethren,  I  am  ready  to  appeal,  and  trust  we  shall  be  able  to 
dispose  of  it  satisfactorily,  in  our  next  lecture.  We  shall 
close  the  present  by  a  brief  recurrence  to  Dr.  Wiseman's  own 
argument  on  another  point  of  his  case,  in  order  to  show  the 
manifest  inconsistency  of  his  premises  with  his  conclusion. 

Contending  for  the  superiority  of  the  Christian  over  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  in  which  we  distinctly  concur,  and  design- 
ing to  derive  from  this  an  argument  for  the  Church's  infalli- 
bility, which  we  as  distinctly  deny,  he  observes,  (p.  19)  "the 
prophets  in  the  first  place,  were  the  types  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
we  see  Jesus  Christ  himself  come  and  take  their  place,  assum- 
ing here  their  ministry,  promising  to  remain  with  his  new 
kingdom,  teaching  therein  always  to  the  consummation  of  the 
world." 

You  perceive,  brethren,  that  our  learned  advocate  here  as- 
serts the  abiding  presence  of  Christ  with  the  Church.  In  this 
we  agree;  but  I  ask  for  what  purpose,  then,  serves  the  doctrine 


OF    THE    PAPAL    CLAIM.  113 

of  the  pope's  vicegerency  ?  A  vicegerent  amongst  earthly 
governments  is  one  who  holds  the  place  and  discharges  the 
functions  of  an  absent  monarch.  But  Christ,  our  King,  is  not 
absent.  His  own  gracious  promise  was  given,  to  be  with  his 
apostles  and  their  successors  always.  Wherever  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  his  name,  he  is  pledged  to  be  in  the 
midst  of  them.  To  use  the  expressive  figure  of  the  book  of 
Revelation,  "He  walketh  among  the  seven  golden  candle- 
sticks," He  unites  with  the  assemblies  of  his  people  in  his  sanc- 
tuaries; yea,  He  enters  into  the  secret  chamber  of  their  inmost 
thoughts.  He  searcheth  the  hearts  and  trielh  the  reins  of  the 
children  of  men.  And  does  He  stand  in  need  of  a  vicegerent  1 
And  shall  a  poor,  infirm  mortal,  talk  of  being  the  vicar  of  the 
divine,  the  omnipresent,  the  omnipotent  Son  of  God?  Alas! 
which  of  the  acts  of  Christ  can  this  imaginary  vicar  perform  ? 
Can  the  pope  of  Rome  say  to  each  sorrowing  heart  throughout 
the  world,  "  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee?"  Can  he  watch  over 
us  in  the  hour  of  temptation?  Can  he  hear  and  answer  our 
prayers?  Can  he  strengthen  and  protect  our  weakness?  Can 
he  mark  our  secret  guilt  in  the  book  of  his  remembrance?  Can 
he  favour  and  bless  our  humble  resolutions  of  repentance  and 
amendment?  O  how  strange,  how  strange;  to  admit  that 
Christ  is  present,  and  yet  to  treat  him  as  if  he  were  absent, 
and  needed  a  vicegerent!  How  strange,  to  acknowledge  Christ 
as  God,  and  yet  suppose  that  a  frail  man  can  be  his  substitute! 
How  strange,  to  adore  Christ  as  the  glorious  King  of  heaven, 
and  yet  imagine  that  the  blessed  privilege  of  admission  to  his 
presence,  is  only  to  be  granted  through  one  weak  mortal  hand 
on  earth ! 

Let  us  then,  beloved  brethren,  rest  satisfied  and  thankful  in 
the  enjoyment  of  that  Scriptural  religion,  which  beholds  the  Re- 
deemer with  the  eye  of  faith,  and  receives  his  promises  in  their 
own  beautiful  simplicity,  and  seeks  his  blessing,  not  in  the 
communion  of  a  supposed  earthly  vicegerent,  but  in  the  living 

l2 


114  CONCLUSION. 

presence  of  his  Spirit  in  our  souls.  Our  blessed  Lord  has 
built  his  Church  upon  himself,  the  Rock  of  ages.  He  has  givea 
unto  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation.  Let  all  our  hearts  unite 
in  the  confession  of  the  apostle,  which  acknowledged  him  to  be 
the  Christ,  the  anointed  Saviour,  the  co-equal  Son  of  the 
eternal  Father;  and  then  shall  we  be  accounted  the  true  citi- 
zens of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem, — the  eternal  city,  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail,  whose  maker  and  builder 
is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever! 


LECTURE  VII. 


Mat.  xvi.  15,  19. — Jesus  saith  to  them,  But  whom  do  you  say  that 
I  am  ?  Simon  Peter  answering  said,  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  And  Jesus  answering,  said  to  him  :  Blessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Bar-jona  j  because  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee, 
but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  unto  thee  that  thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon 
earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven. 


The  text  which  I  have  just  repeated,  my  brethren,  was  the 
theme  of  our  last  lecture,  in  which  we  commenced  the  exami- 
nation of  the  cardinal  principle  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith, 
the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  or  bishop  of  Rome,  as  the  source 
of  unity,  the  fountain  of  authority,  the  ruler  and  pastor  of  the 
whole  Church  throughout  the  world,  holding  the  dominion  of 
Christ's  vicegerent  upon  earth,  to  whom  obedience  and  sub- 
mission are  due  by  every  soul,  under  the  penalty  of  damnation. 
You  recollect  that  these  prerogatives,  with  many  others  neces- 
sarily implied  in  them,  were  attributed  to  the  papacy  in  sub- 
stance by  Dr.  Wiseman,  the  late  and  popular  advocate  of  the 
Roman  claims.  But  that  you  may  the  better  understand  the 
meaning  of  the  doctrine,  I  shall  here  add  the  still  more  posi- 
tive language  of  the  Canon  Law,  established  many  centuries 
ago  by  the  authority  of  the  popes,  and  designed  to  furnish  tlie 
entire  legislative  system  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  distinct 
terms,  for  general  observation. 


116  CANON    LAW. 

"  The  Pope,"  saith  this  Canon  law,  "  by  the  Lord's  appoint- 
ment, is  the  successor  of  the  blessed  apostle  Peter,  and  holds 
the  place  of  the  Redeemer  himself  upon  the  earth." 

"The  Roman  Church,  by  the  appointment  of  our  Lord,  is 
the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  the  faithful." 

"  The  Roman  Pontiff  bears  the  authority,  not  of  a  mere 
man,  but  of  the  true  God  upon  the  earth." 

"The  Pope  holds  the  place  of  God  in  the  earth,  so  that  he 
can  confer  ecclesiastical  benefices  without  diminution." 

"Christ,  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  gave  to  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  in  the  person  of  Peter,  the  plenitude  of  power." 

"Wherever  there  is  any  question  concerning  the  privileges 
of  the  apostolic  chair,  they  are  not  to  be  judged  by  others. 
The  Pope  alone  knows  how  to  determine  doubts  concerning 
the  privileges  of  the  chief  apostolic  seat." 

"It  was  becoming,  since  the  chief  Pontiff  represents  the 
person  of  Christ,  that  as  during  Christ's  earthly  ministry  the 
apostles  stood  round  him,  so  the  assembly  of  the  cardinals 
representing  the  apostolic  college,  should  stand  before  the 
Pope:  but  the  rest  of  the  bishops,  scattered  abroad  every 
where,  represent  the  apostles  sent  forth  to  preach  the  gospel."* 

These  extracts  from  the  Canon  law  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
brethren,  will  explain  more  clearly  the  doctrines  of  Dr.  Wise- 
man; for  although  there  is  no  real  difference  between  them,  yet 
his  phraseology  is  not  so  well  adapted  to  convey  distinct  ideas 
of  papal  supremacy  to  those  who  have  not  had  some  previous 
familiarity  with  the  subject. 

Now  the  first  evidence  relied  on  to  prove  his  doctrine,  as 
you  may  remember,  was  that  of  Scripture,  chiefly  consisting 
of  the  language  of  the  text.  And  I  showed,  as  I  trust  suffi- 
ciently, that  the  Roman  exposition  of  the  passage  was  not 
consistent  with  the  nature  of  the  metaphor,  nor  with  the  other 

*  Church  of  Rome,  19,  &c. 


RECAPITULATION.  117 

evidence  of  the  divine  record:  that  Peter  was  indeed  a  founda- 
tion-stone in  the  spiritual  edifice  of  the  Church,  but  that  Christ 
was  the  Rock  on  which  the  whole  Church  could  alone  be 
founded:  that  the  privileges  promised  to  Peter  were  afterwards 
promised  to  the  other  apostles,  although  not  actually  conferred 
upon  any  of  them  until  the  resurrection  of  Christ:  that  the 
personal  ministry  of  our  Lord,  and  also  of  his  apostles  up  to 
this  period,  was  confined  to  the  Jews,  and  that  it  was  necessary 
to  offer  up  the  great  sacrifice  of  atonement  for  the  whole  world, 
before  the  Gospel  could  consistently  be  extended  to  the  Gen- 
tiles :  that  the  commission  actually  conferred  by  the  Redeemer 
just  before  his  ascension  into  heaven,  was  the  only  fulfilment 
of  the  promise  which  he  had  made  before  to  Peter,  and  to  the 
other  apostles:  that  this  commission  was  not  given  in  one 
form  to  Peter  and  in  another  form  to  the  rest,  but  was  a  joint 
authority,  given  alike  to  all  without  the  slightest  distinction; 
and  that  the  subsequent  history  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles,  and 
the  epistles  as  well  of  Peter  as  of  Paul,  clearly  show,  that  they 
did  not  accord  to  him,  nor  did  he  claim,  the  smallest  superiority 
over  them.  And  having  thus  gone  carefully  and  largely  into 
the  Scriptural  evidence,  we  deferred  until  the  present  occasion 
the  examination  of  the  fathers,  in  which  we  shall  find  a  strong 
corroboration  of  the  views  which  have  been  set  before  you. 

Let  us  then,  brethren,  proceed  to  the  hearing  of  these  primi- 
tive witnesses  and  interpreters  of  Scripture,  and  thus  obtain 
the  opinion  of  those  to  whom  the  Church  of  Rome  so  confi- 
dently appeals.  Before  commencing  our  examination,  how- 
ever, it  may  be  as  well  to  mention  a  few  matters,  necessary  to 
be  borne  in  mind,  in  order  that  we  may  properly  appreciate 
the  nature  and  importance  of  this  kind  of  testimony.  In  the 
first  place,  then,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  earliest  or  oldest 
writers  are  always  the  best  witnesses  of  facts  belonging  to  the 
apostolic  age,  because  they  lived  nearest  to  the  times  when  the 
facts  occurred,  while  those  who  come  after  them  cannot  have 


118  THE    FATHERS. 

an  equal  opportunity  to  test  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  their 
allegations.  And  as,  amongst  the  writers  called  the  fathers,  we 
have  the  names  of  eminent  men  who  lived  in  different  centu- 
ries, we  must  carefully  distinguish  between  their  evidence  on 
this  very  ground;  always  remembering  that  the  earliest  wit- 
nesses must  be  the  most  trustworthy,  not  because  of  their 
greater  integrity,  but  because  the  apostolic  doctrine  must  needs 
have  been  best  known  to  those  who  lived  nearest  to  the  apos- 
tolic day. 

Let  me  next  call  to  your  recollection  the  statement  of  Dr. 
Wiseman,  that,  in  order  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  Roman 
supremacy,  they  are  bound  to  show,  first,  that  Peter  was 
made  the  ruler  over  the  other  apostles  and  the  whole  Church; 
next,  that  he  established  himself  as  the  bishop  of  Rome;  and 
lastly,  that  he  left  his  prerogatives  to  his  successors,  who,  by 
virtue  of  his  rights,  are  to  be  acknowledged  as  the  vicege- 
rents of  Christ  himself  throughout  the  world. 

Now  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  after  the  4th  century  may 
be  cifed  on  both  sides  of  the  argument,  which  very  diversity 
proves  that  the  doctrine  itself  was  not  established  even  at  that 
period.  But  we  shall  prove  to  you,  that  however  the  later 
fathers  may  be  found  to  vary  from  each  other,  the  earlier 
fathers  do  all,  for  the  first  four  hundred  years  of  the  Christian 
era,  testify  distinctly  against  the  present  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  the  greater  part  interpret  the  proof-texts  on 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  papacy  relies,  not  according  to  the 
Roman  explanation  of  them,  but  according  to  our  own. 

Having  premised  these  general  observations,  I  proceed  to  the 
proof  adduced  from  certain  chosen  witnesses  of  our  author, 
and  will  commence  with  those  passages  on  which  he  professes 
to  place  his  chief  dependence. 

He  begins  by  quoting  Irena^us,  the  bishop  of  Lyons,  who 
lived  in  the  next  generation  after  the  apostle  John,  to  prove  the 
episcopate  of  St.  Peter  and  the  superior  spiritual  headship  of 


IRENiEUS.  119 

the  Church  of  Rome;  although,  in  truth,  the  evidence  proves 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  It  is  as  follows :  "  As  it  would 
be  tedious,"  saith  Irenseus,  "to  enumerate  the  whole  list  of  suc- 
cessors, I  shall  confine  myself  to  that  of  Rome,  the  greatest, 
and  most  ancient,  and  most  illustrious  Church,  founded  by  the 
glorious  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  receiving  from  them  her  doc- 
trine, which  was  announced  to  all  men,  and  which  through  the 
succession  of  her  bishops,  is  come  down  to  us.  To  this 
Church,  on  account  of  its  stronger  principality,  every  other 
Church  must  resort,  that  is,  the  faithful  round  about  from 
every  quarter.  They,  therefore,  having  founded  and  instructed 
this  Church,  committed  the  episcopal  administration  thereof  to 
Linus,  to  him  succeeded  Anacletus,  then  in  the  third  place 
Clement,  to  Clement  succeeded  Evaristus,  to  him  Alexander, 
and  then  Sixtus,  who  was  followed  by  Telesphorus,  Hyginus, 
Pius,  and  Anicetus.  But  Soter  having  succeeded  Anicetus, 
Eleutherius,  the  twelfth  from  the  apostles,  now  governs  the 
Church."     (p.  232.) 

This  passage  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  remnants  of  anti- 
quity, greatly  relied  upon  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  triumph- 
antly repeated  by  all  her  writers:  and  yet,  when  carefully  and 
accurately  examined,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  it  is 
utterly  hostile  to  their  claims.  Let  me  ask  your  attention, 
brethren,  to  a  brief  analysis  of  the  case,  as  presented  by  this, 
their  own  chosen  witness. 

First  then,  the  Church  of  Rome  asserts,  that  St.  Peter  was 
bishop  of  Rome  for  twenty-five  years,  and  left  his  prerogative 
to  his  successor.  But  Irenseus  says  that  this  Church  was 
founded  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  that  they  committed 
the  episcopal  government  of  it  to  Linus.  Now  observe,  here, 
that  Irenpeus  not  only  says  nothing  of  Peter's  being  the  first 
bishop  himself,  but  states  what  is  totally  inconsistent  with 
such  a  supposition.  For  the  Church  of  Rome  allows  that  there 
cannot  be  two  bishops  at  once  in  the  same  city  or  in  the  same 


120  IREN^US. 

diocese;  and  therefore,  since  Irenseus  expressly  declares  that 
both  Peter  and  Paul  founded  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  com- 
mitted the  episcopal  charge  of  it  to  Linus,  thereby  uniting  the 
two  apostles  in  the  whole  work,  it  results  manifestly,  either 
that  they  both  acted  as  the  bishops  of  Rome;  which,  by  their 
own  rule,  is  impossible;  or  that  they  acted  in  the  matter,  not  as 
bishops^  but  as  apostles^  which  is  indeed  the  truth.  But  if  this 
be  the  truth  of  Irenseus'  testimony,  it  establishes  our  position, 
that  neither  Peter  nor  Paul  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  but 
Linus;  and  this  fact  alone  is  fatal  to  the  claims  of  papal  supre- 
macy, since  it  places  its  whole  argument  upon  the  assumption 
that  St.  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  the  popes 
are  his  successors. 

In  the  next  place,  the  greatness  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
here  spoken  of  by  Irenseus  in  strong  terms;  and  he  tells  us  that 
the  whole  Church,  that  is,  the  faithful  from  every  quarter,  must 
resort  to  that  Church,  on  account  of  its  stronger  principality. 
Now  our  ingenious  advocate  for  papal  supremacy  would  have 
us  suppose,  that  the  principality  here  mentioned  is  the  pre-emi- 
nence which  Rome  enjoyed  by  reason  of  her  having  been  the 
see  or  bishoprick  of  Peter,  who  was  the  prince  of  the  apostles. 
But  our  witness,  Irenseus,  says  no  such  thing.  The  word 
principality  is  not,  as  we  all  know,  a  term  which  properly 
belongs  to  the  authority  of  Churches,  or  the  government  of 
bishops.  A  bishop  is  an  overseer,  not  a  prince,  in  the  true 
meaning  of  his  office.  And  the  circle  of  his  jurisdiction  is  a 
diocese,  not  a  principality.  Therefore  we  perceive  that  the 
stronger  principality  which,  according  to  Irenseus,  gave  pre- 
eminence to  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  second  century,  was  a 
superiority  derived  from  the  prince,  and  not  from  the  bishop. 
Rome  was  then  the  political  mistress  of  the  world,  because  it 
was  the  seat  of  the  imperial  government.  In  it  was  the  royal 
palace  of  the  Cesars,  and  the  capitol  from  which  the  decrees 
of  the  senate  went  forth  throughout  the   globe.     Within  its 


IREN^US.  121 

walls  were  concentrated  all  the  wealth,  the  learning,  the  am- 
bition, ihe  pleasures,  and  the  interests  of  millions.  It  was  at 
once  the  head  and  the  heart  of  the  most  mighty  empire  on 
which  the  sun  had  ever  shone,  and  the  Church  established 
there,  must,  for  these  reasons,  have  attracted  the  eyes  of  all 
Christendom.  The  faithful  resorted  to  it  from  every  quarter, 
as  their  duties,  their  curiosity  or  their  connexions  led  them  to 
visit  the  vast  metropolis,  and  it  must  have  been  the  richest, 
the  greatest,  and  the  most  influential  of  all  the  Churches, 
through  the  political  and  earthly  principality  of  its  location. 

Thus  understood,  the  language  of  Irenseus  is  clear  and 
consistent;  but  were  we  to  adopt  the  hypothesis  of  Roman 
supremacy  founded  upon  the  episcopate  and  pre-eminent  pre- 
rogatives of  Peter,  we  should  find  it  contradictory  and  unac- 
countable. For  if  this  primitive  witness  believed  as  they 
imagine,  why  did  he  not  say  that  Peter  established  himself  as 
the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  instead  of  saying  that  Peter  and 
Paul  founded  that  Church  jointly,  and  delivered  the  episcopal 
government  to  Linus?  And  in  the  other  part  of  the  passage, 
why  does  he  not  say  that  the  faithful  from  every  quarter  must 
necessarily  resort  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  on  account  of  its 
having  been  the  diocese  of  Peter,  instead  of  saying  on  account 
of  its  stronger  principality  ?  When  fairly  examined,  therefore, 
brethren,  we  see  distinctly  that  Irenceus  does  not  only  omit 
what  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  requires,  but 
actually  sets  down  what  cannot  be  fairly  reconciled  with  it. 

We  are  happy  in  possessing  another  passage  of  the  works 
of  Irenseus,  however,  which  places  the  subject  in  a  still 
stronger  light.  There  was  a  controversy  in  his  time  about 
the  proper  day  for  keeping  the  festival  of  our  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion ;  the  eastern  Churches  universally  observing  it  on  one 
day,  and  the  western  Churches  on  another.  Victor,  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  being  desirous  to  bring  about  a  general  consent  upon 
the  subject,  found  the  eastern  bishops  unwilling  to  change  their 

M 


122  IREN^US 

rule,  and  thereupon  undertook  to  pronounce  against  them  a 
sentence  of  excommunication.  The  consequence  was,  that 
the  other  bishops  of  the  west  censured  him  severely,  and 
amongst  the  rest,  Irenseus,  who  was  the  bishop  of  Lyons, 
wrote  him  a  letter  of  expostulation,  of  which  the  following  is 
a  part: 

"  These  bishops,"  saith  Irenseus,  addressing  himself  to 
Victor,  "  who  formerly  governed  the  Church  of  Rome  over 
which  you  now  preside,  neither  observed  the.  eastern  custom 
about  the  feast  of  Easter  themselves,  nor  allowed  those  who 
were  with  them  to  observe  it.  And  yet  they  preserved  peace 
with  those  Churches  in  which  it  was  observed.  And  when 
the  blessed  Polycarp  (bishop  of  Smyrna)  came  to  Rome  in  the 
time  of  Anicetus,  (who  was  then  the  Roman  bishop)  there  was 
a  little  controversy  between  them  upon  other  matters  as  well 
as  this,  and  yet  they  embraced  each  other  with  the  kiss  of 
peace,  not  being  disposed  to  contend  any  further  about  the 
question.  For  Anicetus  could  not  persuade  Polycarp  to  change 
his  custom,  because  he  had  lived  familiarly  with  the  apostle 
John,  the  disciple  of  our  Lord,  and  with  the  other  apostles, 
and  observed  their  rule  continually.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
could  Polycarp  persuade  Anicetus  to  conform,  because  he  said 
that  he  retained  the  custom  of  the  elders  who  were  before 
him.  Under  these  circumstances,  they  communed  together. 
And  Anicetus,  the  Roman  bishop,  yielded  to  Polycarp,  as  ^a 
token  of  respect,  the  office  of  consecrating  the  Eucharist  in 
the  Church;  after  which  they  departed  from  each  other  in 
peace,  each  retaining,  in  mutual  allowance,  their  former  cus- 
tom." 

Now  here,  brethren,  we  have,  not  a  few  words  of  uncertain 
and  controverted  meaning,  but  a  plain  historical  fact,  which 
clearly  demonstrates  the  equal  rights  of  the  primitive  bishops, 
and  utterly  destroys  the  foundation  of  Roman  supremacy. 
Irena3us,  the  bishop  of  Lyons,  rebukes  Victor,  the  bishop  of 


AGAINST    PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  123 

Rome,  for  breaking  the  peace  of  the  Church  by  excommunica- 
ting the  eastern  Churches.  This  shows  us  two  points  of  great 
importance.  First,  it  shows  how  early  the  notion  of  dominion 
over  the  other  Churches  began  to  be  manifest  in  the  bishops 
who  occupied  the  great  metropohs  of  the  world.  And  secondly, 
it  shows  us,  that  at  this  time  the  other  bishops  had  no  idea  of 
suffering  such  an  assumption,  but,  on  the  contrary,  highly 
disapproved  the  arrogance  and  pride  of  the  Roman  pontiff. 
We  see,  in  the  next  place,  that  Irenasus  relates  to  Victor  the 
condition  of  the  Churches  in  the  generation  which  had  just 
passed  over  them;  when  the  very  same  controversy  arose 
between  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  had  been  the 
scholar  of  St.  John,  and  Anicetus,  the  then  Roman  bishop. 
He  states  expressly  that  neither  would  yield  to  the  other, 
because  each  considered  himself  justified  by  the  custom  of  the 
apostles;  and  yet  so  far  was  the  Roman  bishop  from  pretend- 
ing to  any  supremacy  over  the  bishop  of  Smyrna,  that  he 
gave  him  the  post  of  honour  in  his  own  Church,  and  parted 
from  him  in  peace  and  charity.  Where  was  then  the  doctrine 
of  Peter  being  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  the  pope  holding  the 
place  of  Christ  upon  the  earth,  the  Church  of  Rome  being 
the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  the  Churches,  the  bishop  of 
Rome  being  the  fountain  of  all  authority  and  the  centre  of 
unity?  Ah,  brethren!  these  were  the  comparatively  pure 
days  of  simplicity,  and  apostolic  truth  and  order.  All  bishops 
were  equal,  all  held  a  perfect  parity  of  rights  and  privileges, 
as  the  apostles  had  done  before  them.  In  this  interesting  nar- 
rative, therefore,  we  have  what  may  well  be  called  an  histori- 
cal demonstration,  that  the  vast  prerogative  of  Roman  supre- 
macy had  no  real  sanction  in  the  will  of  Christ,  nor  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  apostles,  nor  in  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church,  but  was  the  result  of  power  and  policy  at  a  much 
later  day. 

Thus  much  may  suffice  for  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Wise- 


124  TERTULLIAN. 

man's  oldest  witness  among  the  fathers.  Let  us  pass  on  lo 
the  evidence  of  the  next,  TertulHan,  who  flourished  within 
thirty  or  forty  years  after  Irena^us.  Our  ingenious  author 
quotes  a  sentence  here,  in  which  TertuUian,  teUing  Christians 
to  settle  their  controversies  by  applying  to  the  nearest  apos- 
tolic Church,  saith,  "  If  you  are  in  Africa,  Rome  is  not  far,  to 
which  we  can  readily  apply.  Happy  Church !  to  which  the 
apostles  gave  their  whole  doctrine  with  their  blood."  Now 
you  will  perceive  at  once,  brethren,  that  this,  although  it  seems 
to  flow  well  enough  in  the  general  channel  of  Dr.  Wiseman's 
argument,  in  reality  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Let  me 
quote  a  little  more  from  the  same  witness,  and  you  will  have 
a  far  more  complete  view  of  his  testimony. 

''•  Come  then,"  saith  TertulHan,  "  you  who  wish  to  exercise 
your  curiosity  to  good  advantage  in  the  concerns  of  your  sal- 
vation, go  through  the  apostolic  Churches,  amongst  which  the 
very  seats  of  the  apostles  continue  in  their  places  and  their 
original  epistles  are  recited,  sounding  forth  the  voice  and  repre- 
senting the  countenance  of  each  one.  Is  Achaia  near  to  you  ? 
You  have  Corinih.  If  you  are  not  far  from  Macedonia,  you 
have  Philippi,  you  have  Thessalonica.  If  you  cannot  go 
throughout  Asia,  you  have  Ephesus.  But  if  you  are  con- 
venient to  Italy,  you  have  Rome,  whence  authority  for  us  is 
nigh  at  hand.  How  happy  is  this  Church  to  which  the 
apostles  gave  their  whole  doctrine  with  their  blood."  Here, 
brethren,  you  have  the  introductory  passage,  together  with  the 
part  on  which  our  learned  advocate  relies;  and  you  see  how 
vain  must  be  the  attempt  to  draw  from  it  any  proof  of  supre- 
macy or  superior  dominion  for  the  Church  or  pope  of  Rome. 
For  TertulHan  refers  the  Christian  to  all  the  apostolical 
Churches,  evidently  placing  them  on  an  equality  :  He  mentions 
first,  Corinth,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  which  were  of  St.  Paul's 
planting.  Then  he  mentions  Ephesus,  which  was  of  St.  John's 
planting.     He  mentions  Rome  last,  and  says  that  her  authority 


TERTULLIAN.  125 

is  nigh  at  hand,  because  he  lived  at  Carthage,  which  was  not 
very  distant  from  Rome.  And  when  he  calls  her,  Happy- 
Church  !  instead  of  giving  the  reason  which  would  suit  Dr. 
Wiseman's  hypothesis,  namely,  because  Rome  was  the  dio- 
cese of  the  apostle  Peter,  and  on  that  account  was  appointed 
to  be  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  the  other  Churches,  and 
to  have  her  bishop  exalted  to  the  seat  of  absolute  supremacy 
as  the  vicegerent  of  Christ — instead  of  all  this,  our  witness 
simply  refers  to  the  circumstance,  that  at  Rome  the  apostles 
Peter  and  Paul  had  suffered  martyrdom,  and  therefore  had  not 
only  given  to  this  Church  their  doctrine,  but  also  their  blood. 
That  this  was  an  interesting  fact  to  the  Church  of  Rome  may 
be  readily  admitted,  but  it  is  obvious  that  it  was  one  which 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question  of  government 
or  supremacy. 

There  is  another  part  of  TertuUian's  testimony,  however, 
which  is  more  express  than  this,  showing  the  rise  of  the  sub- 
sequent doctrine  relative  to  priestly  absolution,  and  arguing 
against  it  in  terms  which  clearly  prove  that  he  was  no  advo- 
cate for  the  supremacy  of  Peter,  and  still  less  for  the  deriva- 
tion of  that  supremacy  to  the  bishops  of  Rome. 

"From  your  own  argument,"  saith  he,  "I  would  know 
from  whence  you  derive  this  right  (of  absolution)  which  you 
claim  for  the  Church.  If  from  our  Lord's  saying  to  Peter; 
Upon  this  rock  f  will  build  my  Church :  To  you  I  will  give 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or.  Whatsoever  you  shall 
bind  or  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven;  do 
you  therefore  presume  that  this  power  of  binding  and  loosing 
descended  to  thee,  that  is,  to  the  whole  Church  which  is  related 
to  Peter?  If  so,  you  are  overturning  and  changing  the  mani- 
fest intention  of  our  Lord,  who  conferred  this  on  Peter  indi- 
vidually. Upon  thee,  he  says,  I  will  build  my  Church ;  and 
to  thee  I  will  give  the  keys,  not  to  the  Church;  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt   loose  or  bind,  not  whatsoever  they  shall 

m2 


126  TERTULLIAN 

loose  or  bind.  So  likewise  the  event  teaches  us.  On  him  the 
Church  was  built,  that  is,  throvgh  him:  he  furnished  the  key; 
behold  what  key.  *Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these  words:  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  a  man  destined  for  you  by  God,'  and  so  on,"  (al- 
luding to  the  first  sermon  preached  by  St.  Peter  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost).  "  He  too,"  continues  Tertullian,  "  first,  in  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ,"  (administered  on  that  same  day  to  three  thou- 
sand Jews,  and  afterwards  to  Cornelius,  being  the  first  exam- 
ple among  the  Gentiles)  "  unlocked  the  gate  of  the  celestial 
kingdom — and  he  bound  Ananias  with  the  chain  of  death,  and 
he  loosed  the  impotent  man  from  his  lameness.  Likewise  in 
that  dispute  which  occurred  about  keeping  the  Mosaic  law, 
Peter,  first,  being  filled  with  the  Spirit,  foretold  the  calling  of 
the  Gentiles.  The  decree  which  followed  both  loosed  the 
things  of  the  law  which  were  omitted,  and  bound  those  which 
were  retained." — "What  now,"  concludes  Tertullian,  "has 
all  this  to  do  with  the  Church,  and  especially  with  yours,  O 
thou  carnal  man?  According  to  the  person  of  Peter,  this 
power  will  suit  spiritual  men,  such  as  an  apostle  or  a  prophet. 
For  the  Church  properly  and  principally  is  the  temple  of  that 
Spirit  in  whom  is  the  Trinity  of  one  Deity,  the  Father,  the 
Sou  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  thus  constituted,  the  Church 
may  forgive  offences;  but  this  is  the  Church  in  which  is  the 
Spirit  by  spiritual  men,  not  the  Church  which  is  the  number 
of  bishops.  For  this  is  the  prerogative  and  will  of  the  Master, 
not  of  the  servant;  of  God  himself,  and  not  of  the  priest." 

This,  brethren,  is  a  long  quotation,  but  I  think  you  will 
agree  with  me  in  considering  it  a  most  interesting  relic  of  an- 
tiquity. I  do  not  mean  to  touch  the  question  at  present,  whe- 
ther TertuUian's  doctrine  as  to  the  power  of  the  keys  was 
right  or  wrong;  this  is  no  proper  occasion  for  that  investiga- 
tion, which  will  call  for  its  own  appropriate  argument  in  due 
season.  But  as  a  witness  brought  before  us  by  the  Church  of 
Rome,  for  the  express  purpose  of  sustaining  her  claims  as  the 


AGAINST    PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  127 

mother  and  mistress  of  all  other  Churches,  and  tlie  claim  of 
her  bishop  as  the  vicegerent  of  Christ,  and  supreme  ruler  over 
the  whole  territory  of  Christendom,  I  consider  it  only  just  to 
hear  all  that  he  has  to  say  upon  the  point  in  question. 

Observe  then,  brethren,  that  according  to  Tertullian,  the 
privilege  of  absolution  granted  to  Peter  was  confined  to  Peter, 
and  to  such  as  he  was,  an  apostle  and  a  prophet,  or  at  the 
least,  if  there  be  any  descent  of  this  prerogative  to  the  Church; 
it  must,  says  he,  be  a  Church  in  which  the  Spirit  speaks  in 
spiritual  men,  and  not  the  Church  composed  simply  of  the 
number  of  bishops.  Secondly,  Tertullian  explains  the  power 
of  the  keys  granted  to  Peter,  to  have  been  the  spiritual  faculty 
of  preaching  the  Gospel,  conferring  baptism,  pronouncing  cen- 
sures of  authorit}'-,  such  as  that  on  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  &c., 
without  one  word  of  supremacy  or  superior  dominion  over  the 
rest  of  the  apostles  or  the  whole  Church.  In  both  of  which, 
this  witness  of  Dr.  Wiseman  is  directly  opposed  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  furnishes  positive  evidence 
against  the  apostolic  derivation  of  their  system. 

The  third  witness  to  whom  our  author  appeals  is  Cyprian, 
the  famous  bishop  of  Carthage,  who,  about  fifty  years  later 
than  Tertullian,  writing  against  the  attempts  of  certain  schis- 
matics to  disturb  the  Church  of  Rome  by  unlawfully  setting 
up  another  person  instead  of  Cornelius,  their  bishop,  used  this 
language:  "Having  chosen  a  bishop  for  themselves,  they  dare 
to  carry  letters  from  schismatics  and  profane  men  to  the  chair 
of  Peter  and  to  the  principal  Church  whence  the  sacerdotal 
unity  took  its  rise,  not  reflecting  that  the  members  of  that 
Church  are  Romans,  whose  faith  was  praised  by  Paul,  to 
whom  perfidy  can  have  no  access." 

Now  here  we  have,  certainly,  a  beginning  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  showing  to  us  what  we  anticipated 
when  examining  the  evidence  of  Irenseus,  namely,  how  early 
the  bishops  of  Rome  endeavoured  to  secure  dominion  and  su- 


123  CYPRIA.N 

premacy.  The  influence  of  their  efforts,  too,  we  find  first 
showing  itself  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Rome,  for  Carthage, 
where  Cyprian  was  bishop,  lay  within  a  moderate  distance 
from  the  imperial  city.  Let  it  be  granted,  then,  that  in  the 
year  250,  about  a  century  and  a  half  later  than  Polycarp,  a 
century  later  than  Irenseus,  and  fifty  years  later  than  Tertul- 
lian,  the  doctrine  was  partially  admitted  that  Peter  had  been 
bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  took  its  rise 
in  the  see  or  diocese  of  Peter.  But  this  you  will  find,  breth- 
ren, carries  us  but  a  very  small  way  towards  the  point  of  the 
pope's  supremacy;  and  a  little  further  examination  of  this  very 
witness  will  show  that  he  believed  no  more  in  that  supremacy 
than  I  do. 

To  understand  the  views  of  this  distinguished  father,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  make  several  other  extracts,  and  to  take  some 
little  time  for  the  purpose  of  combining  them  together;  but  the 
result,  I  may  venture  to  say,  will  be  distinct  and  satisfactory. 
He  thus  states  his  general  system: — 

"As  there  is  only  one  Church  of  Christ,"  saith  Cyprian, 
"divided  into  many  members  throughout  the  whole  world,  in 
like  manner  there  is  but  one  episcopate,  diffused  by  the  har- 
monious host  of  many  bishops:  and  this,  according  to  the  tra- 
dition of  God,  is  the  connected  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church." 

Again,  "the  episcopate,"  saith  he,  "is  one,  of  which  a  part 
is  held  by  each  bishop,  with  an  interest  in  the  whole.  The 
Church  also  is  one,  which  is  extended  more  widely  by  the  in- 
crease of  its  fecundity ;  in  like  manner  there  are  many  rays 
of  the  sun,  but  one  light;  and  many  branches  of  the  tree,  but 
one  strength  founded  in  the  firm  root:  and  though  many  rivu- 
lets flow  from  one  fountain,  and  although  the  number  of  these 
streams  is  diffused  in  the  extent  of  overflowing  abundance, 
nevertheless  unity  is  preserved  in  the  origin." 

Thus  far  then,  brethren,  we  may  see,  that  while  Cyprian 
agreed  to  the  proposition  that  the  promise  made  to  St.  Peter 


AGAINST    PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  129 

was  the  commencement  of  episcopal  unity,  and  that  Peter  oc- 
cupied the  episcopal  chair  of  Rome,  which  for  that  reason  he 
calls  the  seat  of  Peter,  from  which  the  sacerdotal  unity  took  its 
rise;  yet  he  maintained  that  the  bishops  were  every  where 
equal,  like  the  rays  from  the  sun,  and  the  branches  from  the 
tree,  and  the  streams  from  the  fountain.  "  The  episcopate 
being  one,  of  which  a  part  is  held  by  each  bishop,  with  an  inte- 
rest in  the  whole."  Assuredly  these  comparisons  could  never 
have  been  chosen  by  Cyprian,  if  he  had  held  the  Roman  doc- 
trine of  papal  supremacy;  for  here  he  undertakes  to  set  forth 
the  very  part  of  Christianity,  which  would  have  imperatively 
obliged  him  to  mention  the  powers  of  the  chief  ruler,  the  vice- 
gerent of  Christ,  had  such  a  monarchy  as  the  pope  asserts 
formed  any  part  of  his  system. 

To  prove  this,  however,  with  the  strongest  evidence,  we 
must  ask  your  attention  to  a  kw  other  passages.  The  greater 
part  of  the  works  of  Cyprian  consists  of  letters  addressed  by 
him  to  the  bishops  and  clergy.  Many  of  these  are  written  to 
the  bishops  of  Rome,  and  in  all  of  them  the  appellations  given 
to  the  Roman  bishop  are  perfectly  fraternal  and  unceremo- 
nious, indicative  of  the  doctrine  of  entire  equality,  but  totally 
inconsistent  with  the  form  afterwards  established  in  the  papal 
monarchy.  For  this  is  his  invariable  style  of  address:  My 
colleague,  my  fellow  bishop,  my  brother;  but  he  never  adds 
any  title  of  superior  respect  or  deference. 

Again,  Cyprian  assigns  the  reason  why  Rome  takes  pre- 
cedence of  Carthage,  and  here  he  must  surely  have  referred  to 
the  papal  doctrine  of  supremacy,  if  that  doctrine  had  been  ap- 
proved in  his  day.  But  instead  of  this,  he  puts  it  entirely  on 
the  ground  of  the  secular  or  temporal  superiority  of  Rome,  as 
the  metropolis  of  the  world,  according  to  the  principle  which  I 
have  already  explained.  His  words  are  these:  "  Plainly,  there- 
fore, on  account  of  its  magnitude,  Rome  ought  to  precede  Car- 
thage." 


130  CYPRIAN 

But  nothing  tries  the  question  of  comparative  authority  so 
conclusively,  as  the  occurrence  of  a  dispute  or  controversy. 
And  here  we  have  the  irresistible  evidence  of  the  real  state  of 
Church  government  in  the  days  of  Cyprian. 

The  case  was  as  follows :  Stephen,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  next 
but  one  after  Cornelius,  maintained  that  the  administration  of 
baptism  by  the  hands  of  heretics  and  schismatics,  was  vahd, 
notwithstanding  the  heresy  and  schism  of  the  administrators; 
and  therefore,  that  when  persons  so  baptized  came  to  desire 
admission  into  the  Catholic  Church,  they  should  not  be  re- 
baptized,  but  be  received  with  the  imposition  of  hands  and 
prayer,  upon  an  open  acknowledgment  of  their  error.  Cy- 
prian, the  primitive  witness  whose  testimony  is  before  us, 
together  with  Firmilian,  the  bishop  of  Cappadocia,  and  all  the 
bishops  of  Africa,  warmly  opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
bishop;  insisted  that  such  baptisms  were  altogether  void  and 
worthless,  and  that  the  persons  thus  applying  for  admission 
amongst  the  orthodox  or  Catholic  Church,  must  first  receive 
baptism  in  the  Church,  since  their  former  baptism  was,  in 
effect,  no  real  baptism,  but  merely,  as  they  called  it,  a  "stain- 
ing with  profane  water."  It  may  perhaps  be  proper  to  state, 
that  the  doctrine  of  Stephen  was,  long  afterwards,  established 
by  a  general  council,  so  that  Cyprian  and  his  colleagues  did 
not  prove  to  have  had  the  right  side  of  the  controversy ;  and 
this  serves  to  demonstrate,  the  more  clearly,  the  exercise  of 
their  independence  in  the  matter. 

Now  you  remember,  brethren,  that  nearly  a  century  before 
the  time  of  Cyprian,  Victor,  the  then  bishop  of  Rome,  pre- 
sumed to  excommunicate  the  eastern  bishops,  because  they 
would  not  change  their  custom  about  the  festival  of  Easter,  for 
which  he  was  universally  censured  and  reproved.  But  here 
was  a  much  morn  serious  question,  touching  the  validity  of  one 
of  the  sacraments,  and  occurring  at  a  period  when  the  Church 
of  Rome  had  made  some  little  beginning  towards  her  subse- 


AGAINST    PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  131 

quent  dominion.  It  is  obvious  that  the  contest,  under  such 
circumstances,  must  call  out  the  whole  strength  of  the  Roman 
claims,  and  that  in  the  discussion  of  it  we  should  be  able  clearly 
to  ascertain  how  far  those  claims  had  advanced  and  were 
acknowledged.  The  result  was,  that  Cyprian  and  his  col- 
leagues asserted  their  independence  and  maintained  their 
ground,  although  the  bishop  of  Rome,  notwithstanding  the  fail- 
ure of  his  predecessor  Victor,  had  again  tried  the  force  of  his 
ecclesiastical  excommunication. 

Now,  had  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  at  that  time  been  the 
same  with  the  subsequent  system  of  papal  supremacy,  one  of 
these  two  results  must  have  followed  the  resistance  of  Cyprian. 
Either  he  and  his  African  colleagues  must  have  submitted  to 
the  bishop  of  Rome,  or  they  must  have  been  cut  off  as  obsti- 
nate schismatics.  But  neither  of  these  results  were  appre- 
hended,'nor  did  either  take  place.  Cyprian  did  not  submit, 
but  severely  censured  Stephen  for  his  tyrannical  course,  and 
continued  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  Roman  tradition.  And  yet 
so  far  was  he  from  being  condemned  for  his  independence,  that 
he  stands  upon  the  Roman  Calendar  as  a  saint,  and  is  termed 
the  blessed  Cyprian  by  their  canon  law.  Nothing  could  more 
clearly  demonstrate  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  bishops  of 
Rome  for  supreme  dominion  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  perfect 
independence  of  the  bishops  in  Cyprian's  day  upon  the  other. 

I  proceed  to  verify  this  statement,  brethren,  by  the  words  of 
Dr.  Wiseman's  own  witness. 

The  epistle  written  by  Cyprian  and  his  colleagues,  after  the 
first  council  of  Carthage,  to  Stephen,  bishop  of  Rome,  furnishes 
our  first  authority. 

"  In  order  to  correct  and  dispose  certain  matters,"  saith  he, 
"  by  common  consent,  we  found  it  necessary,  most  dear  bro- 
ther, to  collect  together  many  bishops,  and  celebrate  a  council. 
In  which  various  points  were  proposed  and  decided ;  but  that 
about  which  we  chiefly  desired  to  confer  with  your  gravity 


132  CYPRIAN 

and  wisdom,  and  which  concerns  most  nearly  the  authority  of 
the  priesthood,  and  the  unity  and  honour  of  the  Cathohc  Church, 
was  the  subject  of  those  who  are  baptized  without  the  Church, 
stained  with  profane  water  amongst  heretics  and  schismatics. 
When  such  as  these  come  to  us  and  to  the  Church,  which  is 
one,  we  judged  it  fit  that  they  should  be  baptized,  because  we 
think  it  little  worth  to  give  them  the  imposition  of  hands  for 
the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  unless  they  have  first  received 
the  baptism  of  the  Church."  After  this  introduction,  Cyprian 
proceeds  to  explain  his  doctrine  at  large,  and  then  concludes 
as  follows: 

"  These  things  we  have  addressed  to  your  conscience,  dear- 
est brother,  for  the  common  honour  and  for  sincere  love — but 
we  know  that  certain  men  are  unwilling  to  lay  aside  any  opi- 
nion which  they  have  once  expressed,  and  while  the  bond  of 
peace  and  concord  among  their  colleagues  is  preserved,  they 
continue  to  retain  their  own  sentiments.  In  which  matter  we 
neither  give  law  nor  offer  violence  to  any  one.  Since  every 
bishop  exe?'cises  the  free  choice  of  his  own  will  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  Church,  having  to  render  an  account  of  his 
acts  to  the  hord.^"* 

Here,  then,  you  have  the  plain  doctrine  of  Cyprian  addressed 
to  the  bishop  of  Rome  himself,  in  which  you  perceive  how  he 
alludes  to  the  opposite  opinion  of  Stephen,  and  points  out  the 
proper  course  to  be  taken,  namely,  that  if  he  would  not  be  con- 
vinced of  his  error,  he  should  keep  the  peace  of  the  Church, 
and  follow  his  own  plan  within  his  own  jurisdiction.  And  the 
concluding  sentence  is  particularly  strong,  because  Cyprian 
there  lays  down  the  great  rule  of  the  episcopate  to  the  bishop 
of  Rome  himself,  that  every  bishop  exercised  his  own  free 
choice  in  the  administration  of  the  Church  within  his  district, 
being  accountable  to  God  alone.  Where  was  the  doctrine  of 
the  subjection  of  the  other  apostles  to  Peter,  and  the  consequent 
subjection  of  all  other  bishops  to  the  pope,  when  this  epistle 


AGAINST  PAPAL  SUPREMACY.  133 

was  written?  Where  was  the  article  of  the  faith,  as  Dr.  Wise- 
man would  call  it,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  mother  and 
mistress  of  all  the  Churches,  that  the  pope  is  the  fountain  of 
all  authority,  and  occupies  the  place  of  Christ  himself  upon  the 
earth?  Plainly,  brethren,  there  could  have  been  no  such  no- 
tion established  in  the  days  of  Cyprian. 

But  we  add  a  i'ew  extracts  from  the  fathers,  written  after 
Stephen  had  rashly  and  tyrannically  endeavoured  to  excom- 
municate Cyprian  and  his  colleagues.  Thus,  for  example, 
Firmilian,  the  bishop  of  Cappadocia,  addresses  Cyprian  upon 
the  subject:  "  Those  who  are  of  Rome,"  saith  he,  "do  not  in 
all  things  observe  what  was  delivered  from  the  beginning,  and 
they  pretend,  but  vainly,  to  have  the  authority  of  the  apostles. 
Every  one  knows,  that  with  respect  to  the  day  for  keeping 
Easter  and  many  other  rites  of  religion,  there  are  diversities 
among  them,  nor  do  they  observe  all  those  things  which  are 
observed  at  Jerusalem.  The  same  diversity  may  be  seen  in 
many  of  the  provinces.  Many  things  are  varied  through  the 
changes  of  times  and  language,  and  yet  there  is  no  departure 
on  this  account  from  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  But  Stephen,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  has  presumed  to 
disturb  this  concord  and  vmity,  breaking  towards  you  the  peace 
which  his  predecessors  always  maintained,  and  defaming  the 
blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  as  if  they  had  delivered  his 
doctrines." 

In  another  epistle  of  Cyprian  to  one  of  his  African  col- 
leagues on  the  same  subject,  he  says:  "Since  you  have  de- 
sired,  most  dear  brother,  to  know  what  our  brother  Stephen 
returned  in  answer  to  our  letter,  I  have  sent  you  a  copy  of  his 
reply,  in  which  you  see  more  and  more  his  error,  in  endeavour- 
ing to  sustain  the  cause  of  heretics  against  the  Church  of  God. 
Many  are  the  proud  and  irrelevant  things, — many  the  con- 
tradictions, which  he  has  unskilfully  and  thoughtlessly  written. 

N 


134  ORIGEN 

How  great  is  this  obstinacy,  how  bold  this  presumption,  to 
place  human  tradition  before  the  divine  authority."* 

We  have  now  closed  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Wiseman's  third 
witness,  brethren;  and  I  trust  you  have  no  difficulty  in  per- 
ceiving, thus  far,  how  perfectly  the  testimony  of  the  fathers 
substantiates  our  doctrine,  against  the  modern  creed  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  But  I  am  not  willing  to  rest  this  part  of  our 
evidence  upon  the  few  names  which  he  has  selected  from  the 
earlier  writers;  and  therefore  I  must  trespass  a  little  longer,  in 
order  to  show,  that  the  texts  of  Scripture  on  which  the  doctrine 
of  Roman  supremacy  is  supposed  to  rest,  were  interpreted  by 
the  primitive  Church  in  the  same  manner  that  we  have  already 
set  before  you. 

Origen,  a  celebrated  cotemporary  with  Cyprian,  but  belong- 
ing to  another  region  of  the  Church,  gives  the  following 
commentary  on  the  address  of  our  Lord  to  Peter.  "  If  we  also 
shall  say,  as  Peter  did:  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,  not  as  if  it  had  been  revealed  to  us  by  flesh  and 
blood,  but  by  the  light  shining  in  our  hearts  from  the  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,  we  shall  become  as  Peter,  and  it  may  be 
said  by  the  Word  unto  us  also:  Thou  art  Peter;  with  what 
follows.  For  every  disciple  of  Christ  is  a  rock  from  whom 
they  drank  who  drank  of  the  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them, 
and  on  every  such  rock  every  ecclesiastical  word  is  builded, 
and  the  system  of  life  instituted  accordingly;  and  on  every 
such  perfect  rnan,  having  the  combination  of  precepts  perfecting 
holiness,  the  Church  is  inwardly  built  by  God.  But  if  you 
suppose  that  the  Church  is  built  by  the  Lord  upon  Peter  only," 
continues  Origen,  "what  do  you  say  of  John,  the  son  of  thun- 
der, and  every  one  of  the  other  apostles?  Or  shall  we  say 
that  the  gates  of  hell  were  not  to  prevail  specially  against 
Peter?     Were  they  then  to  prevail  against  the  other  apostles 

*  See  the  author's  "  Church  of  Rome,"  for  the  original. 


AGAINST    PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  135 

and  perfect  believers  1 — Or  was  it  to  Peter  alone  that  the  Lord 
gave  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  did  none  other  of 
the  blessed  receive  them  ?  But  if  this  passage  be  common  to 
the  others :  I  will  give  you  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
*t  is  manifest  that  those  things  which  precede  it,  and  are  evi- 
dently connected  with  it,  must  be  common  also." 

"We  see  by  all  this,"  continues  Origen,  a  little  farther  on, 
"how  it  may  be  said  to  Peter,  and  to  every  one  who  resembles 
Peter,  I  will  give  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
For  these  words  are  to  be  taken  in  connexion  with  the  passage : 
The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it;  since  he  who  is 
defended  against  the  gates  of  hell,  so  that  they  prevail  not 
against  him,  is  worthy  to  receive  from  the  divine  Word  him- 
self the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  a  reward — that  he 
might  open  to  himself  those  gates  which  are  shut  to  all  others. 
And  thus  the  key  of  chastity  admits  him  into  the  gate  of  chas- 
tity, and  the  key  of  righteousness  into  the  gate  of  righteousness, 
and  so  of  the  other  virtues. — For  each  virtue  may  be  a  kingdom 
of  heaven;  and  the  whole  together  is  the  kingdom  of  the  hea- 
vens, so  that  he  who  lives  according  to  these  virtues  is  already 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  heavens.  For  Christ,  who  is  all  virtue, 
declares  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  not  here  or  there,  but  is 
within  us." 

One  extract  more,  brethren,  will  suffice,  from  this  most  in- 
teresting witness  of  primitive  antiquity.  "  There  are  some," 
saith  he,  "  who  interpret  this  passage  of  the  episcopacy  as 
being  represented  by  Peter,  and  they  suppose  that  by  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  received  from  the  Saviour,  those 
things  which  are  bound  by  them  on  earth  are  bound  also  in 
heaven,  and  those  which  are  loosed  on  earth,  are  loosed  also 
in  heaven.  And  it  must  be  confessed  that  they  say  truly,  if 
they  have  the  quality  on  account  of  which  it  was  said  to  Peter, 
Thou  art  Peter,  and  if  they  are  such  that  upon  them  the  Church 
can  be  built,  and  this  privilege  can  be  justly  granted  to  them. 


136  EUSEBIUS. 

But  the  gates  of  hell  ought  not  to  prevail  against  him  who 
would  bind  and  loose ;  for  if  he  is  bound  by  the  cords  of  his 
sins,  he  binds  and  looses  in  vain.  Therefore,  if  any  one  be 
not  what  Peter  was,  nor  possessed  of  those  qualities  which 
have  been  described,  and  yet  thinks  that  he,  like  Peter,  can 
bind  and  loose  upon  the  earth,  so  that  his  judgment  shall  be  con- 
firmed in  heaven,  that  man  is  proud,  not  knowing  the  sense  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  being  lifted  up  with  pride  he  falls  into  the 
snare  of  the  devil."* 

Surely,  brethren,  it  is  impossible  to  ask  for  language  more 
plain  than  this,  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  papal  supremacy 
had  not  reached  the  ears  of  Origen,  although,  as  Dr.  Wiseman 
elsewhere  declares,  (p.  116,)  "he  was  one  of  the  most  learned 
men  who  existed  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  and  of  the 
most  philosophical  mind."  He  treats  the  text  in  a  professed 
commentary  on  the  Gospels;  he  speaks  of  the  notion  of  some, 
who  applied  it,  as  Cyprian  did,  to  the  episcopacy  at  large ;  but 
he  seems  utterly  unconscious  that  it  had  ever  been  distorted 
into  such  a  form  as  to  sustain  Peter's  government  over  the 
other  apostles,  much  less  the  government  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome  over  the  whole  Church,  as  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  upon 
earth,  endued  with  the  plenitude  of  power. 

But  our  limits  are  nearly  exhausted,  and  therefore  I  must 
hasten  briefly  over  the  other  testimonies  of  the  fathers,  having 
space  only  for  a  few  out  of  many  which  I  had  noted  for 
insertion. 

Eusebius,  the  learned  bishop  of  Cesarea,  was  the  author  of  an 
ecclesiastical  history  of  the  first  320  years  of  the  Christian 
era.  In  this  work  he  expressly  declares,  with  li-enseus,  that 
Linus,  and  not  St.  Peter,  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome;  but  of 
the  doctrine  of  supremacy  he  says  not  one  word,  while  his 
whole  book  furnishes  the  most  conclusive  circumstantial  evi- 

*  Church  of  Rome,  &c. 


AMBROSE.  137 

dence  against  it.  This  kind  of  evidence,  however,  is  too  tedious 
for  an  occasion  Hke  the  present,  and  therefore  I  pass  it  by.* 

Let  us  next  hear  Ambrose,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Milan, 
who  flourished  about  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  when  the 
influence  of  Rome  had  made  some  progress  towards  the 
achievement  of  her  subsequent  conquests  over  the  liberties  of  the 
Churches.  Yet  notwithstanding  this  fact,  and  notwithstanding 
his  contiguity  to  Rome,  we  shall  find  his  testimony  valuable. 
Thus,  speaking  of  the  interpretation  of  the  text,  Ambrose  saith, 
^^  Faith  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  for  it  was  not  said  of 
the  flesh  of  Peter  but  of  his  faith,  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not 
prevail  against  it,  but  the  confession  of  faith  overcame  hell." 

Again,  this  witness  saith,  addressing  himself  to  Christians 
generally:  "Believe  as  Peter  believed,  that  you  also  may  be 
blessed,  that  you  may  deserve  to  hear :  Flesh  and  blood  hath 
not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
For  whosoever  overcomes  the  flesh,  is  a  foundation  of  the 
Church.  If  he  cannot  equal  Peter,  he  can  imitate  him  ;  for  the 
gifts  of  God  are  great,  since  he  has  not  only  repaired  in  us  what 
is  ours,  but  has  even  vouchsafed  to  grant  us  what  is  his  own." 

Again,  "The  rock,"  says  Ambrose,  "is  Christ,  for  they 
drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  which  followed  them,  and  that  rock 
was  Christ.  And  he  has  not  denied  to  his  disciple  even  the 
favour  of  this  word,  that  he  also  may  be  a  Peter,  because  from 
the  rock  he  derives  the  solidity  of  perseverance  and  the  firm- 
ness of  faith.  Strive,  therefore,  that  thou  mayest  also  be  a  rock. 
And  look  for  that  rock  not  without  thee,  but  within.  The  rock 
is  thine  action,  the  rock  is  thy  mind.  Upon  that  rock  thy  house 
is  built,  that  it  may  be  struck  by  no  spiritual  wickedness.  The 
rock  is  thy  faith :  faith  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church." 

The  mode  in  which  Ambrose  speaks  of  the  apostles,  shows 
him  to  be  an  advocate  for  the  equality  of  their  office,  and 

*  Church  of  Rome. 

n2 


138  JEROME. 

therefore  no  believer  in  the  supremacy  of  Peter,  and  of  the 
pope  of  Rome.  Thus  in  one  place  he  saith,  "To  thee,  said 
our  Lord,  I  will  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that 
thou  mayest  loose  and  bind.  Novatian  did  not  hear  this,  but 
the  Church  of  God  heard  it.  What  is  said  to  Peter  is  said  to 
all  the  apostles." 

Again,  "For  as  Peter,  James  and  John  seemed  to  be  pillars 
of  the  Church,  so  also  whoever  shall  overcome  the  world  be- 
comes a  pillar  of  God." 

And  again:  "Paul  w^as  not  inferior  to  Peter,"  saith  Am- 
brose, "  although  the  one  was  a  foundation  of  the  Church,  and 
the  other  a  wise  master  builder.  Nor  was  Paul  unworthy  of 
the  apostolic  college,  since  he  also  may  be  compared  with  the 
first,  and  was  second  to  none.  For  he  who  does  not  acknow- 
ledge himself  inferior,  makes  himself  equal."* 

From  the  testimony  of  Ambrose,  I  turn  to  another  witness, 
who  is  also  one  of  Dr.  Wiseman's  own  choice,  the  famous  and 
learned  Jerome.  In  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  thus  speaks  of 
the  comparative  authority  of  the  Churches  and  the  bishops. 
"The  Churcli  of  Rome,"  saith  he,  "  is  not  to  be  thought  one 
thing,  and  that  of  the  whole  world  another.  Gaul  and  Britain, 
and  Africa  and  Persia,  and  the  East,  and  Judea,  and  all  the  bar- 
barian nations,  adore  also  one  Christ,  and  observe  the  same 
rule  of  truth.  If  authority  is  sought  for,  the  world  is  greater 
than  one  city.  Wherever  there  is  a  bishop,  whether  at  Rome, 
or  Eugubium,  or  Constantinople,  or  Rhegium,  or  Alexandria, 
or  Tanis,  ho  is  of  the  same  excellency,  of  the  same  episcopate. 
The  power  of  wealth  and  the  lowliness  of  poverty  does  not 
make  a  bishop  either  less  or  greater.  But  they  are  all  the 
successors  of  the  apostles." 

Again:  "You  say,"  saith  Jerome,  "that  the  Church  is 
founded  on  Peter,  although  the  same  thing  is  elsewhere  done 

*  Church  of  Rome. 


AUGUSTIN.  139 

upon  all  the  apostles,  and  all  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  so  that  the  strength  of  the  Church  is  consolidated 
upon  them  all  alike." 

That  Jerome  interpreted  the  text  as  we  have  done,  is  abun- 
dantly certain.  Thus,  in  his  commentary  on  the  very  passage, 
he  saith,  "On  this  rock  the  Lord  founded  his  Church;  from 
this  rock  the  apostle  Peter  obtained  his  name."  Again:  "The 
foundation  which  the  apostle,  as  an  architect,  laid,  is  one,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.    Upon  this  foundation  the  Church  is  built."* 

The  great  Augustin,  bishop  of  Hippo  in.  Africa,  must  close 
this  hasty  sketch  of  the  fathers'  testimony;  and  you  will  find, 
brethren,  that  his  interpretation  of  the  chosen  texts  of  our  Ro- 
man advocate  is  particularly  clear  and  decisive. 

"The  Lord,"  saith  this  eminent  father,  "declared,  'Upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,'  because  Peter  had  said, 
*Thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God.'  Upon  this  rock, 
therefore,  which  thou  hast  confessed,  I  will  build  my  Church. 
For  the  rock  was  Christ,  upon  which  foundation  Peter  himself 
also  was  built.  For  another  foundation  can  no  man  lay,  be- 
sides that  which  has  been  laid,  Christ  Jesus.  The  Church 
therefore,  which  is  built  on  Christ,  received  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  in  Peter,  that  is,  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing  sins." 

Again,  saith  this  eminent  master  in  Israel,  "What  does  this 
saying  mean:  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church?  Upon 
this  FAITH,  upon  that  which  was  spoken:  Thou  art  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God^ 

Upon  the  other  text  in  St.  John's  Gospel,  where  the  apostle 
Peter  is  told  by  our  Lord  to  feed  his  sheep,  the  same  great 
teacher  saith  as  follows  :  "Feed  my  sheep,  I  commit  my  sheep 
to  thee.  What  sheep?  Those  which  I  have  bought  with  my 
blood.     I  have  died  for  them.     Dost  thou  love  me?    Die  thou 

*  Church  of  Rome. 


140  REFLECTIONS. 

for  them  also.  And  truly,  brethren,"  continues  Augustin, 
"Peter  gave  his  blood  for  them.  But  that  which  was  committed 
to  Peter,  that  which  he  was  commanded  to  do,  not  Peter  only 
but  likewise  all  the  apostles,  heard,  held  and  kept. — They 
heard  these  things,  and  transmitted  them  to  us  that  we  might 
hear  them.  We  feed,  therefore,  and  are  fed  with  you.  May 
God  give  us  strength  in  such  wise  to  love  you,  that  we  also 
may  be  enabled  to  die  for  you,  either  in  fact  or  in  affection."* 

But  here,  brethren,  I  must  close  this  slight  enumeration  of 
the  primitive  witnesses,  to  which  the  advocates  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  confiding  I  presume  in  our  ignorance,  are  always  in 
the  habit  of  appealing  with  apparent  triumph,  when  nothing 
can  be  more  certain  than  the  fact,  that  their  testimony,  fairly 
and  thoroughly  examined,  is  decidedly  adverse  to  the  Roman 
doctrine.  We  have  yet  to  lay  before  you  the  history  of  the 
actual  rise  and  progress  of  the  papal  dominion,  the  height  to 
which  it  had  attained  before  the  Reformation,  its  influence  upon 
the  kingdoms  of  Europe,  its  subsequent  reduction  to  its  modern 
form,  and  the  varieties  of  construction  now  existing  with  regard 
to  its  true  extent  and  character ;  all  of  which  we  shall  endea- 
vour to  bring  within  the  compass  of  the  next  lecture.  Mean- 
while, we  may  find  it  profitable  to  suggest  a  few  reflections, 
which  naturally  arise  from  the  subject  before  us. 

And  first,  let  us  take  from  it  a  lesson  on  the  selfish  tenden- 
cies of  human  nature,  which  even  amongst  the  holiest  and 
the  best  of  men,  are  so  apt  to  lead  to  corruption.  The  efforts 
of  the  primitive  bishops  of  Rome,  to  accumulate  power — their 
desire  to  attach  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  government  to 
the  rights  of  the  Roman  Church — their  ingenuity  in  fastening 
a  forced  and  erroneous  meaning  upon  Scripture  to  support 
their  pretensions;  and  the  evident  commencement  of  their 
unfounded  claims,  although  but  a  commencement,   even  in 

*  Church  of  Rome. 


CONCLUSION.  141 

that  early  period,  when  the  Church  was  still  groaning  under 
the  iron  rod  of  persecution — all  this  shows  us,  as  in  a  faithful 
mirror,  the  infirmities  of  poor  human  nature;  and  the  ease 
with  which  the  demon  of  ambitious  self-aggrandizement,  can 
appear  to  be  an  angel  of  light.  And  yet  many  of  these  men 
were  unquestionably  eminent  for  piety  and  zeal ;  nor  do  I 
doubt  their  sincerity  in  believing  that  their  supremacy  over  the 
Church,  if  once  established,  would  tend  powerfully  to  preserve 
it  in  unity  and  peace.  But  they  erred  in  imagining  that  any 
human  invention  could  be  a  real  improvement  upon  the  system 
of  God,  established  by  the  inspired  apostles;  and  therefore 
they  stand  as  a  warning  to  the  Church  not  to  place  confidence 
in  man,  however  exalted  in  station  or  eminent  in  character. 
There  is  nothing  infallible,  but  the  Word  of  God. 

In  the  second  place,  my  brethren,  we  may  here  learn  a 
lesson  of  admiring  confidence  in  the  Providence  of  the  Al- 
mighty Ruler,  that  the  very  writings  of  the  primitive  fathers 
should  be  handed  down  to  us  by  the  Church  of  Rome  herself, 
not  indeed  in  their  perfect  integrity  and  purity,  for  many  of 
their  own  writers  acknowledge  that  they  have  been  grievously 
interpolated,  but  yet  so  far  genuine,  as  to  afford  us  the  clearest 
proof  of  the  state  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  the  most  satis- 
factory evidence  that  its  original  government  was  altogether 
changed  into  a  totally  opposite  system ;  the  vast  republic  of 
the  Catholic  Church  (see  Laud's  Conf.  with  Fisher,  166)  con- 
verted into  a  stupendous  monarchy — the  various  dioceses  v/ith 
their  bishops,  once  equal  and  independent,  debased  into  infe- 
rior jurisdictions,  subject  to  the  arbitrary  dominion  of  a  single 
head — so  that  no  two  things  bearing  the  same  name  can  be 
more  difTerent,  than  the  free  and  moderate  episcopacy  of  the 
time  of  Cyprian,  and  the  despotism  which  afterwards  super- 
seded it  in  the  supremacy  of  the  pope  of  Rome.  True  indeed 
it  is,  that  these  writings  of  the  fathers  afford  abundant  material 
in  support  of  the  Roman  doctrines,  after  the  first  four  cen- 


142  CONCLUSION. 

turies  passed  away.  True  likewise,  that  an  ingenious  appli- 
cation of  certain  passages  in  the  earlier  fathers  can  be  made 
to  look  like  Romanism,  as  you  have  doubtless  perceived,  my 
brethren,  in  the  course  of  these  lectures.  But  we  have  great 
reason  to  be  thankful,  that  a  thorough  examination  of  these 
primitive  witnesses  will  be  rewarded  by  so  much  that  is  pure 
and  Scriptural;  and  that  in  this  way,  the  very  authorities  to 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  appeals  in  support  of  error,  can 
be  made  tributary  to  the  establishment  of  truth. 

Lastly,  we  should  surely  rejoice  in  the  especial  goodness 
and  mercy  of  God,  that  after  centuries  of  darkness  and  delu- 
sion, our  forefathers  were  enabled  to  regain  so  happily  the 
faithful  likeness  of  the  ancient  Church  of  Christ,  and  perpetu- 
ate it  in  the  leading  doctrines,  government,  and  worship  of  the 
Church  of  England.  For  you  perceive,  beloved  brethren, 
that  every  examination  we  make  into  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  great  rule  of  faith,  and  into  the  interpretations  and 
practice  of  primitive  Christianity,  only  serves  to  corroborate, 
more  and  more,  the  truth  and  correctness  of  her  religious 
principles.  Those  principles,  freed  from  every  political  ad- 
mixture, have  descended  to  us,  and  form  the  most  precious 
part  of  the  many  privileges  derived  from  our  father-land. 
May  we  cherish  the  doctrines  thus  inherited,  with  increasing 
devotion.  May  we,  in  our  turn,  hold  up  the  lamp  of  sacred 
instruction,  to  all  who  need  its  blessed  light.  May  we  watch 
over  our  own  ways,  under  the  humbling  conviction,  that  our 
responsibility  before  Christ  must  be  in  proportion  to  our  ad- 
vantages; and  earnestly  seek  that  grace,  through  which  alone 
we  can  hope  that  our  labour  will  not  be  in  vain.  And  may  we 
live  to  see  the  day,  when  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  we  de- 
sire to  love  notwithstanding  all  her  errors,  shall  adopt  the 
writings  of  those  fathers  which  she  professes  to  venerate,  and 
find  her  way  back  again  to  the  primitive  pattern  of  apostolic 
truth  and  order. 


LECTURE  VIII. 

John,  xviii.  36. — Jesus  answered;  my  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 

Our  two  last  discourses,  my  brethren,  were  occupied  by 
that  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  asserts 
the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  as  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  himself, 
the  head  of  the  whole  Church,  at  once  the  centre  of  unity  and 
the  fountain  of  authority;  and  makes  this  proposition  an  article 
of  faith,  necessary  to  every  man's  salvation.  The  first  of  these 
two  lectures  was  devoted  to  the  examination  of  the  Scriptural 
evidence,  on  which  the  advocates  of  Roman  supremacy  rely ; 
and  the  second,  to  the  testimony  of  the  earlier  fathers.  We 
proved,  as  I  trust,  conclusively,  that  the  claims  of  this  univer- 
sal monarchy  over  the  Church  universal,  were  contrary  to  the 
plain  and  repeated  testimonies  of  the  sacred  volume;  and 
further,  that  the  texts  to  which  its  advocates  were  accustomed 
to  appeal,  were  interpreted  by  the  fathers,  not  according  to  the 
Roman  doctrine,  but  according  to  our  own.  We  stated  that 
the  first  germ  of  the  papacy  was  indeed  to  be  found  very- 
early,  in  the  history  of  the  attempts  made  by  the  bishops  of 
Rome  to  govern  the  other  bishops  with  a  high  hand.  We 
showed  that  their  pretensions  grew  out  of  the  superior  wealth 
and  influence  of  the  great  metropolis,  ancient  Rome,  which 
was,  at  the  time  when  Christianity  found  a  place  within  it, 
and  for  several  centuries  afterwards,  the  acknowledged  mistress 
city  of  the  world.  And  we  promised,  in  the  present  lecture, 
to  set  forth  the  rise,  progress  and  extent  of  the  papal  dominion, 


144  RISE    OF    THE    PAPACY. 

prior  to  the  Reformation,  and  the  condition  in  which  it  stands 
at  the  present  day.  To  these  topics  I  shall  now  invite  your 
attention,  and  shall  state  those  facts  only  which  the  unques- 
tionable authorities  of  the  Church  of  Rome  herself  will  fully 
justify.  You  will  then  be  enabled  to  see  the  striking  contrast 
between  the  doctrine  of  the  papacy,  and  the  declaration  of  our 
blessed  Saviour  in  the  text,  which  I  have  set  down  in  the  words 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  version,  called  the  Doway  Bible : 
"Jesus  answered,  my  kingdom  is  not  of  this  worlds  For 
you  will  behold  the  pope  claiming  a  kingdom  over  the  whole 
earth,  wielding  his  authority  over  all  other  monarchs,  not  only 
becoming  a  temporal  prince  in  his  own  dominions,  but  bringing 
every  other  European  sovereign  in  homage  to  his  feet. 

To  show  the  progress  of  this  extraordinary  history  the  more 
clearly,  I  shall  state  first,  the  condition  of  papal  power  between 
the  beginning  of  the  4th  and  the  8th  century ;  secondly,  its 
condition  from  the  8th  to  the  16th  century,  which  was  the 
period  of  the  Reformation;  and  thirdly,  its  condition  from  that 
time  to  the  present:  all  of  which  will  be  important  to  those 
who  desire  to  estimate  correctly  the  character  of  this  funda- 
mental article  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith. 

At  the  time  when  Constantino  the  great  became  a  convert  to 
Christianity,  which  was  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  312,  the 
Roman  empire  might  be  said  to  embrace  the  whole  civilized 
world.  In  its  political  division,  it  included  several  extensive 
districts,  which  were  then  called  dioceses,  and  the  emperor 
conformed  the  government  of  the  Church  to  the  same  limits. 
The  chief  political  ruler  of  each  of  these  large  dioceses  was 
called  Exarch,  and  the  chief  ecclesiastical  ruler  was  the  Patri- 
arch. Every  patriarchate  contained  several  provinces,  and  the 
chief  bishop  of  a  province  was  called  the  metropolitan.  Every 
province  contained  several  parishes,  or,  as  we  now  call  them, 
dioceses,  over  each  of  which  a  bishop  presided,  under  whom 
were  the  inferior  clergy.     Amongst  all  these  there  was  a  regu- 


RISE    OF    THE    PAPACY.  145 

lar  system  of  subordination,  gradually  rising  from  the  lowest 
ecclesiastic  to  the  patriarch.  But  amongst  the  patriarchs  there 
was  no  subordination,  for  all  were  equally  supreme.  The  only 
distinction  among  them  was  the  order  of  honour,  or  precedence, 
derived  from  the  customary  respect  paid  to  their  respective 
sees;  and  the  highest  honour  was  naturally  and  properly  ac- 
corded to  the  patriarch  of  Rome,  because  Rome  was  the  impe- 
rial residence,  the  mistress  city  of  the  whole. 

This  condition  of  the  government  of  the  Church,  brethren, 
as  you  will  at  once  perceive,  was  partly  of  apostolic  and  partly 
of  human  authority.  The  original  three  orders  of  the  ministry, 
the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  continued  to  be  the  only  orders 
acknowledged  universally  as  of  indispensable  obligation.  To 
these  the  Church  by  degrees  appended  others.  The  subdeacon, 
the  reader,  the  door-keeper,  the  acolyth,  were  below  the  order  of 
deacon,  and  were  designed  to  assist  in  the  various  offices  of 
the  house  of  God.  The  archdeacon,  and  archpriest  or  dean, 
were  posts  of  distinction  among  the  deacons  and  priests,  calcu- 
lated to  aid  the  bishop  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties;  and  the 
metropolitan  or  archbishop,  and  the  patriarch,  were  distinc- 
tions amongst  the  bishops  themselves,  intended  to  be  useful 
auxiliaries  in  the  work  of  government.  All  these,  however, 
were  of  simply  human  device,  and  the  higher  ranks  proved,  in 
the  end,  liable  not  only  to  the  abuses  which  pollute  even  the 
ordinances  of  God  when  ministered  by  man's  infirmity,  but  to 
those  peculiar  dangers  of  ambition  and  pride,  which  belong, 
more  or  less,  to  every  scheme  of  mortal  invention,  in  the  arduous 
and  tempting  field  of  authority  and  power. 

It  was  not  long  after  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  before 
the  emperor  Constantino  formed  the  plan  of  transferring  his 
imperial  residence  to  that  celebrated  city  which  bears  his 
name,  Constantinople.  Raised  by  the  immense  treasures 
which  he  had  at  his  command,  to  a  surpassing  height  of  gran- 
deur, and  made  the  seat  of  one  of  the  great  patriarchates,  it 


146  PROGRESS  OF  THE  PAPACY. 

was  soon  recognized  as  the  rival  of  Rome,  and  contended, 
with  various  success,  for  absolute  superiority.  The  Church 
was,  at  this  time,  grievously  troubled  by  heresies.  At  no  pe- 
riod, indeed,  was  she  perfectly  free  from  them,  but  they  as- 
sumed a  far  greater  magnitude  when  the  religion  of  the  Gos- 
pel became  adopted  by  the  State;  because  the  zealous  libe- 
rality of  the  emperor,  and  the  ignorant  ardour  of  the  patrician 
host,  held  out  to  every  ingenious  innovator  the  hope  of  patron- 
age from  the  great,  and  support  from  the  powerful.  Hence 
the  calling  of  General  Councils,  to  debate  upon  and  settle  the 
true  Christian  faith,  became  necessary.  Some  smaller  Coun- 
cils we  read  of  previously,  such  as  those  of  Carthage  in  the 
time  of  Cyprian.  But  the  collecting  of  large  Councils,  in 
which  the  bishops  should  come  together  from  distant  parts, 
and  continue  long  in  session,  required  the  action  of  the  go- 
vernment: and  we  find,  accordingly,  that  the  first  extensive 
assemblage  of  that  kind  was  summoned  at  Aries  by  Constan- 
tine,  and  the  first  General  Council  which  was  held  at  Nice,  in 
Bithynia,  on  the  subject  of  the  Arian  heresy,  was  stated  by 
the  emperor  himself,  in  his  speech  to  the  Council,  to  have 
been  his  own  plan,  as  it  certainly  could  only  have  been 
brought  about  by  his  own  authority.* 

You  are  all  aware,  brethren,  of  the  well  known  historical 
fact,  that  before  the  close  of  the  century  which  saw  Chris- 
tianity established,  the  vast  empire  of  Rome  was  divided  into 
two  parts,  the  eastern  and  the  western.  Constantinople  was 
the  seat  of  the  eastern,  and  for  the  most  part,  Ravenna,  and 
not  old  Rome,  became  the  seat  of  the  western ;  so  that  the  ab- 
sence of  the  emperor  naturally  threw  more  and  more  influence 
and  power  into  the  hands  of  the  popes,  or  bishops  of  Rome. 
It  was  almost  equally  a  matter  of  course,  that  in  the  holding 
of  Councils,  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Church  should  take  the 

*  Church  of  Rome. 


PROGRESS  OF  THE  TAPACY.  147 

lead  in  the  east,  and  the  western  in  the  west ;  so  that  the  two 
great  patriarchates  of  Rome  and  Constantinople,  by  degrees, 
divided  the  whole  power  of  the  Church  between  them.  But 
the  scale  of  their  respective  claims  inclined  more  and  more  in 
favour  of  the  popes,  because  the  east  was  torn  and  distracted 
by  dissensions  in  the  fundamental  points  of  faith,  such  as  the 
Trinity,  and  the  nature  and  person  of  Christ.  While  Rome, 
maintaining  these  steadfastly,  as  she  does  to  this  day,  gained 
that  increasing  measure  of  confidence,  which  firmness  and 
consistency  never  fail  to  secure,  when  contrasted  with  anar- 
chy and  confusion. 

I  have  not  space,  nor  would  it  be  interesting,  to  dwell  on 
the  various  turns  of  history  between  the  division  of  the  em- 
pire, and  the  second  period  marked  as  the  time  of  Charle- 
magne, or  Charles  the  great.  The  irruptions  of  the  barba- 
rians, the  extinction  of  the  western  empire,  the  passage  of  the 
Roman  sceptre  to  the  east,  the  establishment  for  a  time  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lombards  in  Italy,  were  all  events  of  import- 
ance. But  in  reference  to  our  particular  subject,  the  power  of 
receiving  appeals,  granted  to  the  pope  by  the  emperors  Valen- 
tinian  in  the  west,  and  Marcian  in  the  east,  was  a  more  import- 
ant step  towards  the  papal  dominion,  than  any  other  event  be- 
longing to  this  part  of  history.  The  elevation  of  the  murderer 
and  tyrant  Phocas  to  the  imperial  throne,  in  the  sixth  century, 
was  also  made  tributary  to  the  honour  of  the  Roman  Church, 
inasmuch  as  this  emperor  granted  to  the  pope  the  title  of  uni- 
versal bishop.  The  dreadful  dissensions  of  the  east  about  the 
worship  of  images  in  the  seventh  century,  still  further  tended 
to  increase  his  influence  and  power;  but  we  pass  over  these, 
in  order  to  mark  the  temporal  glory  and  substantial  territory 
acquired  in  the  eighth  century,  which  forms  the  second  era  of 
the  papal  supremacy. 

The  story  is  as  follows:  The  kingdom  of  the  Franks  was 
under  the  feeble  government  of  the  last  descendant  of  Clovis, 


148  PROGRESS  OF  THE  PAPACY. 

the  weak  Childeric;  while  all  the  real  prerogatives  of  royalty 
were  exercised  by  Pepin,  the  mayor  of  the  palace.  The  no- 
bles, as  well  as  himself,  were  bound  by  the  ties  of  allegiance 
to  their  phantom  of  a  king;  and  they  applied  to  pope  Zachary 
to  know  how  far  they  might  lawfully  have  these  ties  dissolved, 
so  as  to  place  Pepin  on  the  throne.  The  pope  decided,  that 
under  such  circumstances,  Childeric  might  be  deposed  and 
sent  to  a  monastery;  and  that  Pepin,  who  already  had  the 
power,  might  assume  the  name  of  king.  Accordingly,  Pepin 
and  his  adherents  gladly  received  the  accommodating  decision, 
and  on  the  strength  of  the  pope's  high  authority,  the  revolution 
was  at  once  effected. 

Rome  was  at  this  time  in  peril  from  the  Lombards,  who 
possessed  what  was  called  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  and  had  often 
assaulted  and  ravaged  the  ancient  city.  On  the  application  of 
the  pope,  Pepin  came  to  its  succour,  forced  Astolphus,  the 
Lombard,  to  resign  his  prey,  and  in  his  gratitude  to  the  Ro- 
man pontiff  for  affording  him  a  plausible  title  to  the  throne  of 
France,  he  made  a  donation  of  the  exarchate  to  the  pope  and 
his  successors,  as  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter.  This  donation 
was  enlarged  and  confirmed  by  his  son,  Charles  the  great; 
who  retained  it,  nevertheless,  under  his  jurisdiction  and  protec- 
tion with  the  title  of  patrician  and  patron :  and  thus  the  former 
ecclesiastical  possession  of  farms  and  houses,  (Gibbon,  v.  92) 
was  transformed  into  cities  and  provinces,  and  the  pope  be- 
came the  wearer  of  a  princely  crown,  notwithstanding  we  are 
told  that  he  is  the  vicar  of  Him  who  said,  "My  kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world." 

The  successful  conqueror  who  thus  became  the  strongest 
earthly  support  of  the  papal  supremacy — since,  in  sustaining 
the  papacy,  he  was  justifying  his  own  right  to  the  throne  of 
France — was  soon  afterwards  declared  emperor  of  the  Ro- 
mans by  pope  Leo  III.  and  publicly  crowned  in  the  Church 
of  St.  Peter.     And  thus  Rome  was  finally  detached  from  the 


ESTABLISHMENT    OF    THE    PAPACY.  149 

eastern  empire,  and  a  distinct  western  empire  was  formally 
established  by  the  sword  of  Charlemagne,  and  the  policy  of 
the  pope.  (Gib.  v.  102.)  It  is  easy  to  see  how  an  example 
which  resulted  so  prosperously  in  the  case  of  Pepin  and  his 
son,  would  be  adopted  by  other  sovereigns  in  the  difficulties  of 
the  European  states,  and  how  the  papal  authority  to  dispose  of 
crowns  and  sceptres,  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  most  pow- 
erful empire  of  the  age,  would  become  a  standing  prerogative 
of  the  papacy,  allowed  by  the  following  ages,  and  openly  de- 
fended by  popes  and  kings,  as  their  various  interests  might 
best  incline  them. 

There  was  still,  however,  one  defect  in  the  papal  monarchy, 
which  lasted  long  after  the  time  of  Charles  the  great,  namely, 
that  the  election  of  the  popes  was  not  complete,  until  it  was 
approved  by  the  emperor.  And  this  badge  of  subjection  con- 
tinued for  nearly  two  centuries  later,  when  pope  Gregory  VII. 
succeeded,  after  many  years  of  conflict,  in  settling  the  founda- 
tions on  which  the  whole  papal  system  has  ever  since  been 
built,  and  on  which  it  is  still  maintained,  not  indeed  by  the 
general  admission  of  Roman  Catholics  in  Germany,  France, 
and  Great  Britain,  but  assuredly  by  the  popes  themselves, 
who  are,  according  to  the  acknowledged  doctrine  of  their 
Church,  the  only  proper  judges  of  the  question. 

This  brings  us,  brethren,  to  the  third  period,  that  of  the 
Reformation;  since  which  there  has  been  manifested,  through- 
out the  Church  of  Rome,  in  all  the  countries  I  have  mentioned, 
a  strong  disposition  to  deny  the  temporal  part  of  the  papal 
prerogative,  namely,  that  which  warrants  the  pope  to  depose 
sovereigns,  grant  kingdoms,  and  be  the  supreme  arbiter  of  all 
human  governments,  throughout  the  globe.  The  first  system- 
atic attack  upon  this  prerogative  was  made  in  A.  D.  1682,  by 
the  famous  Declaration  of  the  French  Clergy,  in  the  reign  of 
Louis  the  XIV.  Since  which,  almost  all  their  modern  contro- 
versialists, when  writing  for  the  eyes  of  Protestants,  and  Dr. 

o2 


150  DICTATES 

Wiseman  amongst  the  rest,  agree  to  make  light  of  it,  as  being 
the  product  of  the  middle  ages— not  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  at  all,  but  merely  the  well-meant  imposition  of  the 
popes  themselves,  to  check  the  warlike  temper  of  European 
potentates  in  feudal  times,  by  obliging  them  to  respect  some 
superior  power.  And  thus  has  been  revived  a  more  moderate 
doctrine,  which  was  attempted  to  be  established  in  the  century 
before  the  Reformation,  by  the  Councils  of  Florence  and 
Basle,  viz  :  that  the  pope  is  inferior  to  a  General  Council,  and 
that  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  not  placed  in  the  office 
of  the  pope,  but  in  the  decisions  of  the  Church  at  large.  Now 
these  doctrines  do  indeed  detract  immensely  from  the  powers 
which  the  popes  had  openly  claimed  and  exercised  for  more 
than  five  hundred  years  together :  but  neither  of  them,  T  am 
sorry  to  say,  have  yet  been  sanctioned  by  the  only  tribunal 
competent  to  settle  the  controversy,  since  they  have  never 
been  adopted  by  the  popes  themselves,  and  in  their  last  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  the  whole  subject  was  passed  over. 

Having  thus,  brethren,  set  before  you  a  brief  history  of  this 
remarkable  and  important  article  of  the  Roman  creed,  I  pro- 
ceed to  state  my  evidence,  which  you  will  find  to  be  far 
stronger  than  my  language  has  been.  And  in  this  evidence 
you  will  bear  in  mind  that  I  quote  from  those  books  only 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  produced,  and  therefore  is 
bound  to  admit  as  good  authority. 

I  commence  with  the  famous  Dictates,  as  they  are  called, 
of  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  extracted  from  the  collection  of  the 
Councils,  published  by  the  Roman  Catholics  of  France,  and 
edited  by  the  Jesuit  Hardouin ;  and  I  beg  your  particular  atten- 
tion to  them,  as  being  the  fundamental  maxims  of  the  papacy, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  11th  century,  that  is,  in  its  modern 
form.     (Hard.  Con.  6  vol.  part  1,  p.  1304.) 

"  1 .  That  the  Roman  Pontiff  alone  is  lawfully  called 
the  Universal  Bishop, 


OF    GREGORY    VII.  151 

2.  That  he  alone  can  depose  or  reconcile  the  other  bishops. 

3.  That  his  legate  takes  precedence  of  all  bishops  in 
council,  and  may  pronounce  sentence  against  them. 

4.  That  the  Pope  can  depose  those  who  are  absent, 

5.  That  no  one  ought  even  to  remain  in  the  same  house 
with  any  person  excommunicated  by  the  Pope. 

6.  That  to  him  alone  it  belongs,  in  cases  of  exigency,  to 
make  new  laws,  to  congregate  new  people,  to  divide  a  rich 
bishoprich,  or  to  unite  poor  ones. 

7.  That  he  alone  can  use  the  ensigns  of  imperial  gov- 
ermnent. 

8.  That  all  princes  should  kiss  the  feet  of  the  Pope  only. 

9.  That  his  name  only  shall  be  recited  in  the  Churches. 

10.  That  his  name  is  alone,  throughout  the  world. 

11.  That  it  is  lawful  for  him  to  depose  emperors, 

12.  That  it  is  lawful  for  him  to  transfer  bishops  from 
diocese  to  diocese. 

13.  That  he  may  ordain  any  one  in  any  Church  he 
thinks  ft. 

14.  That  no  council  ought  to  be  called  general,  without 
his  order. 

15.  That  no  chapter,  nor  any  book,  be  esteemed  canonical 
without  his  authority. 

16.  That  his  sentence  can  be  withdrawn  or  reversed  by 
no  one,  and  that  he  himself  alone  has  authority  to  make  such 
retractation. 

17.  That  he  cannot  be  judged  by  any. 

18.  That  no  one  should  dare  to  condemn  the  Apostolic 
See. 

19.  That  the  weightier  questions  should  be  referred  to 
him,  by  every  Church. 

20.  2'hat  the  Roman  Church  never  has  erred,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  it  never  will  err. 

21.  That  the  Roman  Pontiff,  if  he  has  been  canonically 


152  PRACTICAL    OPERATION 

ordained,  is  beyond  doubt  made  holy  by  the  merits  of  blessed 
Peter. 

22.  That  no  man  shall  be  held  for  catholic,  who  does 
not  agree  with  the  Church  of  Rome. 

23.  That  the  Pope  can  absolve  the  subjects  of  wicked 
princes  from  their  allegiance,'''' 

Now  here,  brethren,  we  have  a  code  of  the  most  absolute 
despotism,  and  yet  nothing  more  than  what  fairly  exhibits  the 
practical  administration  of  the  papacy  for  many  ages,  and 
what,  as  I  shall  presently  prove,  has  never  been  relinquished 
to  this  day.  To  show,  however,  in  what  manner  it  was  ac- 
tually carried  out,  I  must  ask  your  attention  to  some  passages 
from  the  papal  history. 

Henry  IV.,  who  was  emperor  of  Germany  and  king  of 
the  Romans  at  the  time  of  pope  Gregory's  election,  and  who 
had  confirmed  it,  refused  to  give  up  the  right  of  investing  his 
own  bishops,  and  the  pope  excommunicated  him  accordingly. 
The  effects  of  this  papal  sentence  were  so  serious,  in  com- 
pelling his  friends  and  subjects  to  withdraw  from  him,  that  he 
found  himself  obliged  to  seek  a  reconciliation  with  the  incensed 
pontiff,  and  came  to  Italy,  having  previously  tried  in  vain  to 
procure  his  absolution,  by  messengers  and  presents.  Now 
the  following  passage  is  extracted  from  the  letter  of  the  pope 
himself,  addressed  to  the  German  subjects  of  the  emperor, 
and  giving  an  account  of  Gregory's  own  course  upon  this 
remarkable  occasion.  "  The  king  came,"  says  the  pope, 
"  with  a  very  few  attendants,  to  the  city  of  Canusium,  where 
I  was  at  that  time  residing,  and  there  he  presented  himself 
before  the  gate  for  three  entire  days,  in  a  wretched  condition  : 
all  his  royal  apparel  being  laid  aside,  clothed  in  woollen,  and 
barefoot,  he  ceased  not  to  implore,  with  much  weeping,  the 
aid  and  consolation  of  our  apostolic  mercy,  so  that  all  those 
who  were  present,  and  to  whom  the  report  came,  were  moved, 
with  pity  and  compassion;  and  interceding  for  him  with  many 


OF    PAPAL    SUPKEMACY.  153 

tears  and  prayers,  were  astonished  at  our  unusual  hardness  of 
heart,  crying  out,  that  we  did  not  exhibit  so  much  the  gravity 
of  apostoHc  judgment,  as  the  cruelty  of  tyrannical  ferocity. 
At  length  we  yielded,  being  overcome  by  his  compunction  and 
the  supplication  of  the  rest,  and  the  chain  of  our  anathema 
being  loosed,  we  re-admitted  him  into  the  bosom  of  the  holy 
mother  Church,  having  first  received  from  him  the  following 
security."  Here,  brethren,  we  have  an  oath  set  forth  on  the 
part  of  king  Henry,  which  I  add  in  full,  because  it  sheds 
much  light  on  the  character  of  the  whole  transaction.  (Hard. 
Cone.  6  vol.  1  part,  p.  1355.) 

"  The  oath  of  Henry,'' 

King  of  the  Germans. 
"I,  Henry  the  king,  promise,  with  respect  to  the  murmurs 
and  dissension,  which  the  archbishops  and  bishops,  the  dukes, 
counts,  and  the  other  princes  of  the  Germans,  now  have  against 
me,  that  I  will  pursue  the  course  which  my  lord  pope  Gregory 
shall  lay  down,  that  I  will  seek  justice  according  to  his  judg- 
ment, and  concord  according  to  his  counsel,  unless  some  im- 
pediment shall  prevent  either  myself  or  him,  which  impedi- 
ment, being  removed,  I  will  be  ready  to  perform  the  same. 
Likewise,  if  the  same  lord  pope  Gregory  shall  desire  to  pass 
beyond  the  mountains,  or  to  go  to  any  other  part  of  the  world, 
he  shall  be  secure  on  my  part  from  all  injury  of  life  and  limb, 
or  captivity,  and  also  those  who  shall  accompany  him,  and 
those  whom  he  shall  send,  or  those  who  shall  be  going  to  him 
from  any  part  of  the  world  ;  and  this  security  shall  be  for  the 
time  of  their  going,  remaining  and  returning:  nor  shall  any 
hinderance  be  given  them  by  my  consent,  which  may  be  con- 
trary to  his  honour.  And  should  any  other  attempt  his  in- 
jury, I  promise  to  help  him  with  all  my  power." 

This  is  the  whole,  brethren,  of  king  Henry's  oath  or  secu- 
rity; turning,  you  perceive,  solely  upon  the  disputed  question 
of  internal  government,  extending  to  the  point  of  personal 


154 


DEPOSITION    OF    KING    HENRY. 


assistance,  but  not  having  one  line  in  it  which  refers  to  the 
Gospel,  or  to  the  spiritual  discipline,  which  could  alone  serve 
even  as  a  pretext  for  the  pope's  severity. 

In  the  progress  of  the  history,  however,  it  appears,  that 
although  the  king  submitted,  he  did  not  remain  long  satisfied, 
and  therefore  took  up  arms  against  the  pope,  to  vindicate  what 
he  claimed  to  be  his  right  in  the  investiture  of  the  bishops, 
notwithstanding  the  want  of  the  pope's  sanction.  After  the 
war  had  lasted  for  some  time,  we  meet  with  another  oath  which 
the  pope  tendered  to  Henry,  as  the  condition  of  peace.  It  is 
as  follows : 

"From  this  hour  and  thenceforward,  I  will  be  faithful  with 
good  faith  to  the  blessed  apostle  Peter  and  to  his  vicar  pope 
Gregory,  who  is  now  living.  And  whatsoever  the  pope  him- 
self shall  command  me  under  these  words.  By  true  obedience, 
I  will  faithfully  observe,  as  it  becomes  a  Christian.  But  with 
regard  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Churches,  and  the  lands  or  the 
tribute  which  Constantino  the  emperor,  or  Charles,  have  given 
to  St.  Peter,  and  of  all  the  buildings  and  property  which  at  any 
time  have  been  given  by  men  or  women  to  the  holy  see,  and 
which  are  or  shall  be  in  my  power,  I  will  so  agree  with  the 
pope  that  I  shall  not  incur  the  danger  of  sacrilege  and  the 
perdition  of  my  soul.  And  I  will  render  all  due  honour  and 
service  to  God  and  to  holy  Peter,  Christ  helping  me;  and  on 
that  day  when  I  shall  first  see  the  pope,  I  will  faithfully,  by 
my  own  hands,  become  the  soldier  of  St.  Peter  and  himself." 

Here  again,  we  have  a  most  emphatic  assertion  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  pope's  dominion:  his  spiritual  excommunication 
being*used  to  promote  his  temporal  interests,  and  the  strength- 
ening of  his  earthly  kingdom  being  always  a  prominent  object 
of  the  exacted  submission. 

The  sentence  of  king  Henry's  deposition,  and  the  transfer 
of  his  empire  to  duke  Rudolph,  which  the  pope  delivered  in 
full  council  at  Rome,  will  close  our  citations  from  his  testi- 


HIS    KINGDOM    GIVEN    AWAY.  155 

mony.  (Hard.  Con.  Vol.  6,  part  1,  p.  1590.)  And  you 
will  observe  that  Gregory,  throughout  the  whole  of  this  extra- 
ordinary document,  addresses  himself  to  the  apostles  Peter  and 
Paul,  instead  of  to  the  Deity.     The  language  is  as  follows: 

"O  blessed  Peter,  prince  of  the  apostles,  and  thou  blessed 
Paul,  teacher  of  the  nations,  vouchsafe,  I  pray  you,  to  incline 
your  ears  to  me,  and  hear  me  graciously.  Since  you  are  the 
disciples  and  lovers  of  truth,  help  me  that  I  may  speak  the 
truth  to  you,  that  my  brethren  may  the  better  acquiesce  in  my 
judgment,  and  that  they  may  know  and  understand  how  in 
your  trust  and  confidence,  after  the  Lord  and  his  ever  virgin 
mother  Mary,  I  resist  the  evil  and  the  wicked,  and  render  help 
to  all  who  are  faithful  to  you."  In  the  same  strain  the  pope 
proceeds,  relating  king  Henry's  disobedience  and  duke  Rudolph's 
merits  to  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  at  considerable  length,  and 
thus  he  concludes,  still  addressing  the  apostles  as  before.  "  Oa 
which  account,  confident  in  the  judgment  and  mercy  of  God, 
and  of  his  most  pious  mother  the  ever  virgin  Mary,  and  en- 
dued with  your  authority,  I  subject  to  excommunication,  and 
bind  with  the  chains  of  the  curse,  the  aforesaid  Henry,  whom 
they  call  king,  and  all  his  abettors;  and  on  the  part  of  the 
omnipotent  God,  and  on  your  part,  (blessed  Peter  and  Paul)  I 
interdict  to  him  the  kingdom  of  Germany  and  Italy,  and  take 
away  from  him  all  royal  dignity  and  power,  and  I  forbid  every 
Christian  to  obey  him  as  a  king,  and  I  absolve  from  their  oath 
of  allegiance  all  who  have  promised  or  shall  promise  obedience 
to  him.  And  I  declare  that  the  said  Henry  and  his  abettors 
shall  have  no  strength  for  the  war,  and  that  in  his  life-time  he 
shall  gain  no  victory.  And,  further,  I  give,  grant  and  agree, 
on  the  part  of  your  faithfulness  (O  blessed  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul)  that  Rudolph,  whom  the  Germans  have  elected  for  their 
king,  shall  rule  and  govern  the  kingdom  of  Germany :  and  to 
all  who  shall  faithfully  adhere  to  him,  I,  relying  on  your 
support,  do  grant  the  absolution  of  all  their  sins,  and  your 


156  UNIVERSALITY    OF    THE    PAPAL    CLAIM. 

blessing  in  this  life,  and  in  the  life  to  come.  For  as  Henry, 
for  his  pride,  disobedience  and  deception,  is  justly  deposed 
from  the  royal  dignity,  so  do  we  grant  to  Rudolph  the  same 
dignity,  for  his  humility,  obedience  and  truth." 

"I  pray  you,  therefore,  O  most  holy  apostles,  fathers  and 
princes,  that  all  the  world  may  understand  and  know,  that,  as 
you  are  able  to  bind  and  loose  in  heaven,  you  are  also  able 
upon  the  earth  to  take  away  and  to  grant,  according  to  their 
respective  merits,  empires  and  kingdoms,  principalities  and 
dukedoms,  marches  and  counties,  and  the  possessions  of  all 
men.  For  oft-times  you  have  taken  away  patriarchates, 
primacies,  archbishopricks,  and  dioceses,  from  the  wicked  and 
unworthy,  and  have  given  them  to  the  faithful  and  the  pious. 
If,  therefore,  you  can  judge  spiritual  dominions,  how  much  is 
it  to  believe  that  you  can  do  the  same  with  temporal:  and  if 
you  shall  judge  the  angels  who  govern  all  proud  princes,  what 
can  you  not  do  to  their  servants?  Let  kings  now  learn  and  all 
the  princes  of  the  world,  how  great  you  are,  O  blessed  Peter  and 
Paul,  how  much  you  can  perform,  and  let  them  fear  to  make 
light  of  the  commands  of  your  Church:  and  especially  inflict 
your  judgment  on  the  aforesaid  Henry  so  speedily,  that  all 
may  know  his  fall  to  be  by  your  power,  and  not  by  chance. 
May  he  be  confounded  to  repentance,  that  his  spirit  may  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord." 

Here,  brethren,  is  a  document,  extracted  from  the  records  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  translated  as  closely  as  possible, 
which  exhibits  fully  and  fairly  what  very  few  amongst  Roman 
Catholics  themselves  are  aware  of,  in  the  comparatively  mode- 
rate notions  promulgated  about  the  pope's  authority  at  the  pre- 
sent day.  The  case  is  the  more  worthy  of  notice,  because  it 
was  the  first  example  of  the  kind;  although  the  claims  of  the 
popes  had  been,  for  a  long  period  before,  gradually  coming  up 
to  the  mark  of  this  stupendous  dominion.  And  being  the  first, 
it  is  no  wonder  that  it  was  not  acquiesced  in.     So  far  from  it 


DESPOTISM    OF   THE    PAPACY.  157 

indeed,  that  it  produced  a  long  and  bloody  war,  gave  rise  to 
the  parties  of  the  Guelphs  and  Ghibellines,  and  desolated  the 
land  for  more  than  a  century.  It  is  further  interesting,  be- 
cause it  is  so  strongly  characterized  by  the  superstition  of  that 
age,  namely,  the  11th  century,  than  which  perhaps  none  have 
been  darker.  The  pope  addresses  himself  to  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul,  he  calls  himself  their  vicar,  he  relies  on  their  power 
in  heaven  and  on  earth,  he  pronounces  his  anathema  not  only 
against  the  king,  but  against  the  thousands  of  his  unknown 
subjects  who  might,  however  innocently  and  loyally,  adhere 
to  him.  And  with  equal  liberality,  he  pledges  the  absolution 
of  all  their  sins,  together  with  the  blessing  of  the  apostles  here 
and  hereafter,  to  all  who  should  sustain  Rudolph,  without  con- 
cerning himself  about  their  having  any  other  good  quality 
whatever:  so  that  nothing  can  give  a  clearer  idea  of  the  sys- 
tem of  the  papacy,  with  its  attendant  despotism,  superstition 
and  servility,  in  the  days  of  this  most  distinguished  and  suc- 
cessful conqueror  over  the  liberties  of  Christendom. 

Not  quite  two  centuries  elapsed  after  this  example  of  Gre- 
gory, when  we  find  pope  Celestine  III.  exhibiting  his  suprema- 
cy in  an  improved  style  towards  another  Henry,  the  5th  of  the 
name,  and  also  emperor  of  Germany  ;  who,  with  his  empress 
Constantia,  came  to  receive  their  crown  at  the  hands  of  the 
pope,  after  the  reconciliation  of  a  quarrel  between  them.  The 
manner  in  which  the  pontiff  performed  this  duty  is  thus  nar- 
rated by  the  Roman  historian  Baronius.  "  Our  lord  the  pope 
was  seated,"  saith  the  historian,  (An.  Baron.  Tom.  12,  p. 
841,)  "  in  the  pontifical  chair,  holding  the  golden  crown  of  the 
empire  between  his  feet,  and  the  emperor,  bending  down  his 
head,  received  the  crown,  and  the  empress  in  like  manner, 
from  the  feet  of  our  lord  the  pope.  But  our  lord  the  pope 
immediately  struck  the  emperor's  crown  with  his  foot,  and 
threw  him  on  the  floor,  in  order  to  signify,  that  he  had  the 
power  to  cast  him  from  the  empire  if  he  should  prove  unde- 


158  EXTERMINATION    OF   HERETICS. 

serving.  And  then  the  cardinals,  picking  up  the  crown,  placed 
it  upon  the  head  of  the  emperor."  This  insulting  freak  would 
induce  one  to  suppose,  that  the  pope  must  have  been  one  of 
those  young  and  undisciplined  persons,  who  were,  in  some  in- 
stances, strangely  elected  to  that  high  dignity.  But  the  fact  is 
that  Celestine,  who  thus  obliged  an  emperor  and  an  empress  to 
receive  their  crowns  from  his  feet,  and  then  kicked  off  the  im- 
perial diadem,  and  overset  the  wearer,  was  eighty-five  years 
old  (ib.  p.  839,  §  1,)  at  the  time  of  his  consecration.  These 
instances  are  only  specimens  out  of  a  large  list  of  cases,  where 
the  power  of  the  pope  is  placed  high  above  that  of  every 
earthly  potentate. 

We  shall  have  no  difficulty,  with  these  facts  before  us,  bre- 
thren, to  be  prepared  for  the  broad  principle  laid  down  in  the 
great  council  of  Lateran,  summoned  by  pope  Innocent  III., 
and  consisting  of  more  than  1200  bishops,  in  which  it  was  de- 
clared, (Philpot's  Letters  to  Butler,  I.  275,)  that  "the  secular 
powers  should  be  admonished,  and  if  necessary,  be  compelled 
by  ecclesiastical  censures,  to  make  oath  that  they  will,  to  the 
utmost  of  their  power,  strive  to  exterminate  from  their  territory 
all  heretics  declared  to  be  such  by  the  Church;  and  further, 
that  if  any  temporal  lord,  being  required  and  admonished  by 
the  Church,  shall  neglect  to  purge  his  territory  from  all  taint 
of  heresy,  Tie  shall  be  excommunicated  by  the  metropolitans 
and  other  provincial  bishops,  and  if  he  contemptuously  omit  to 
give  satisfaction  within  a  year,  it  shall  be  signified  to  the  holy 
pontiff,  in  order  that  he  may  thenceforth  proclaim  his  vassals 
absolved  from  fealty  to  him,  and  may  expose  to  catholics  his 
territory  to  be  occupied  by  them,  who,  having  exterminated 
the  heretics,  may  possess  the  same  without  contradiction." 
Here,  brethren,  we  have  the  same  tremendous  supremacy  as- 
serted by  the  largest  council  that  ever  met  together,  and 
openly  connected  with  the  principle  of  persecution  in  its  worst 
form. 


DESPOTISM    OF    THE    PAPACY.  159 

Our  next  evidence  shall  be  from  an  epistle  of  this  pope  Inno- 
cent III.  to  the  eastern  emperor  of  his  day,  where  we  read  as 
follows ;  "  You  ouglit  to  have  known  the  prerogative  of  the 
priesthood  from  its  being  said  by  God,  not  to  a  king  but  to  a 
priest,  not  to  one  descended  from  royal,  but  priestly  parentage: 
See!  I  have  set  thee  up  over  the  nations  and  over  the  king- 
doms, to  root  up  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy  and  to  throw- 
down,  to  build  and  to  plant.  Besides  you  ought  to  know,  that 
God  made  two  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven,  the  greater 
light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night — 
both  great,  but  one  greater.  In  the  firmament  of  heaven, 
therefore,  that  is,  of  the  Universal  Church,  God  made  two  great 
lights — that  is,  instituted  two  great  dignities,  which  are,  the 
authority  of  the  pope  and  the  power  of  kings.  But  that  which 
rules  over  the  day,  that  is,  in  spiritual  things,  is  the  greater; 
and  that  which  rules  over  carnal  things,  is  the  lesser.  So  that 
the  difference  between  pontiffs  and  kings  may  be  understood  to 
be  as  great  as  between  the  sun  and  the  moon."  (Philpot's 
Letters  to  Butler,  I.  279.)  This  was  the  pontiff,  brethren, 
whose  name  was  rendered  so  famous  in  English  history  by 
his  triumph  over  the  contemptible  king  John.  But  Otho,  one 
emperor,  and  Frederick,  another,  were  treated  by  him  with 
quite  as  little  ceremony. 

Again,  saith  the  Roman  canon  law,  on  the  authority  of  pope 
Boniface  VIII.,  (ib.  p.  278.)  "  All  the  faithful  of  Christ  are  of 
necessity  of  salvation  under  the  Roman  pontiff,  who  has  both 
swords,  and  judges  all  men,  but  is  judged  by  none.  We  are 
instructed  by  the  Gospel,  that  in  the  power  of  the  pope  there 
are  tw^o  swords,  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal.  The  one  to 
be  used jTor  the  Church,  the  other  hy  it — the  one  by  the  priest, 
the  other  by  the  hand  of  kings  and  soldiers,  hut  at  the  nod  and 
svfferance  of  the  priest.  But  one  sword  ought  to  be  under 
the  other,  and  the  temporal  authority  to  be  subjected  to  the 
spiritual.     Finally,  we  declare,  say,  define,   and  pronounce, 


160  PAPAL    SUPREMACY 

that  it  is  of  necessity  of  salvation  to  every  creature,  to  be 
subject  to  the  Roman  pofit iff. ^^ 

But  enough,  and  perhaps  more  than  enough  of  evidence, 
brethren,  has  been  exhibited,  to  prove  the  enormous  height  and 
unparalleled  power  of  the  papal  dominion,  as  it  was  set  forth 
and  practised  over  all  Europe  from  the  end  of  the  10th  to  the 
16th  century,  which  brings  us  to  the  era  of  the  Reformation. 
The  remaining  branch  of  our  proof  is  in  relation  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  the  popes  have  really  resigned  their  pretensions 
since  that  time,  as  Dr.  Wiseman,  and  every  other  Roman 
Catholic  advocate,  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  es- 
pecially, profess  to  believe.  And  on  this  part  of  the  case, 
facts  are  the  best  ground  for  argument. 

In  the  year  1570,  some  time  after  the  Reformation, 
pope  Pius  V.  published  his  sentence  of  excommunication 
against  queen  Elizabeth,  and  endeavoured  to  excite  her 
subjects  to  revolt,  and  deprive  her  of  her  kingdom.  Sub- 
sequently to  this,  Pope  Sixtus  V.  renewed  the  attempt  by 
a  solemn  bull,  in  which  he  styles  Elizabeth  an  usurper,  a 
heretic,  and  an  excommunicate,  gives  her  throne  to  Philip  II. 
of  Spain,  and  commands  the  English  to  join  the  Spaniards  in 
dethroning  her.  Every  reader  of  history  knows  that  this  act 
of  the  pope  produced  the  Spanish  invasion,  at  which  time  their 
famous  armada  was  totally  destroyed,  and  their  whole  object 
defeated;  so  that  this  tyrannical  effort  of  the  pope  to  break 
down  the  English  Church,  only  established  it  more  firmly  than 
before.  (Philpot's  Supplement,  p.  475.)  .  The  same  pope  pro- 
ceeded in  the  same  way  against  Henry  king  of  Navarre,  the 
prince  of  Conde,  and  all  their  adherents;  pronouncing  them 
heretics,  declaring  their  dominions  and  estates  forfeited,  ab- 
solving their  subjects  from  their  allegiance,  and  charging  them 
not  to  obey  their  princes  under  pain  of  the  greater  excommu- 
nication. 


SINCE    THE    REFORMATION.  161 

The  famous  declaration  of  the  French  clergy  already  referred 
to,  which  is  currently  stated  to  be  now  the  standard  doctrine, 
and  in  which  the  power  of  the  pope  in  temporal  matters  is 
wholly  denied,  was  passed  in  the  year  1682.  But  it  was  con- 
demned by  pope  Innocent  XL,  and  afterwards  by  Alexander 
VIII.;  and  all  the  power  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  could  not  pre- 
vail on  pope  Pius  VII.  to  acknowledge  its  doctrine,  even  when 
a  prisoner  at  Savona,  so  late  as  the  year  1811,  only  thirty-two 
years  ago.  It  is  certain,  besides,  that  both  the  French  bishops 
and  the  king  himself,  who  were  concerned  in  framing  that 
declaration,  were  obliged  to  apologize  to  the  then  pope,  before 
he  would  consent  to  the  institution  of  the  divines,  whom  the 
monarch  had  named  to  fill  the  vacant  bishoprics ;  (ib  p.  478.) 
so  that  it  is  evident  there  was  no  amelioration  of  the  former 
despotic  claim,  so  far  as  the  popes  were  concerned. 

But  not  to  consume  time  with  other  instances,  let  us  come 
to  those  later  examples  which  have  occurred  within  our  own 
day.  In  A.  D.  1800,  pope  Pius  VII.  addressed  Louis  XVIII. 
as  lawful  king  of  France,  and  made  to  him,  as  such,  the  usual 
communication  of  his  election  to  the  papacy.  In  the  following 
year,  on  10th  April,  1801,  the  same  pope  entered  into  a  Con- 
cordat with  Bonaparte,  which  instrument  not  only  suppressed, 
at  one  stroke,  one  hundred  and  forty-six  episcopal  and  metro- 
politan sees,  and  dismissed  their  bishops  without  form  or  trial, 
but  also  absolved  all  Frenchmen  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance 
to  their  sovereign,  Louis  XVIII.,  and  authorized  an  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  First  Consul.  (See  Philpot's  Letters  to  But- 
ler, quoting  Butler's  own  authority  for  the  above,  p.  302.) 

And  in  A.  D.  1809,  the  same  pope  issued  his  bull,  excom- 
municating and  anathematizing  the  same  Napoleon  Bonaparte, 
and  all  who  adhered  to  him  in  the  invasion  of  the  papal  do- 
minions. The  language  of  this  bull  is  worthy  of  especial 
notice.  It  is  as  follows :  "  Let  our  persecutors  then,"  says  the 
pope,  "learn  once  for  all,  that  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ  has 

p2 


162 


CEREMONIES 


subjected  them  to  our  authority  and  to  our  throne.  For  we 
also  hear  the  sceptre^  and  we  can  say  that  our  power  is  far 
superior  to  theirs, — already  have  so  many  sovereign  pontiffs 
been  forced  to  proceed  to  similar  extremities  against  rebellious 
princes  and  kings,  and  shall  we  be  afraid  to  follow  their  ex- 
ample ?"  (ib.)  Here  then,  brethren,  we  behold  a  direct  claim 
of  the  temporal  sword,  and  a  positive  application  of  its  use, 
within  our  own  recollection,  in  the  midst  of  the  boasted  illumi- 
nation of  the  nineteenth  century;  clearly  demonstrating,  that 
whatever  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome  may  think  it 
expedient  to  say  about  the  matter,  the  prerogatives  of  the  pope 
are  held  as  high  as  ever  they  were,  in  Rome  itself;  and  the 
popes  are  as  ready  to  exercise  them,  if  the  temper  of  the  age 
would  bear  it. 

A  kw  words  upon  the  ceremonies  of  the  pope's  installation 
may  be  desirable,  as  shedding  light  upon  the  proper  character  of 
this  important  doctrine,  and  these  shall  be  extracted  from  a 
standard  work  upon  the  subject.  "  The  pope,  after  his  election, 
is  adored  three  times.  First,  in  the  chapel  where  the  election  is 
held,  the  dean  of  the  cardinals,  and  after  him  the  other  cardi- 
nals, adore  him  on  their  knees,  kiss  his  foot,  and  then  his  right 
hand.  The  second  time  he  is  placed  on  the  altar  in  the  chapel 
of  Sixtus,  where  the  cardinals  come  and  adore  him  in  the  same 
manner.  And  again,  the  pope  is  carried  in  his  pontifical  chair 
under  a  grand  canopy  of  red,  fringed  with  gold,  to  the  Church 
of  St.  Peter,  where  he  is  placed  upon  the  grand  altar,  and  the 
cardinals  adore  him  for  the  third  time,  and  after  them,  the 
ambassadors  of  princes." 

"At  his  coronation,  he  is  seated  on  his  throne,  and  an  anthem 
is  sung,  the  words  of  which  are  the  prophecy  of  the  Psalmist 
relative  to  Christ:  "Thou  shalt  set  a  crown  of  pure  gold  upon 
his  head."  The  second  cardinal  deacon  takes  the  mitre  from 
him,  and  the  first  puts  the  tiara  on  his  head,  saying:  Receive 
this  tiara  which  is  adorned  with  three  crowns,  and  forget  not, 


OF    THE    PAPAL    CORONATION.  163 

in  wearing  it,  that  you  are  the  father  of  princes  and  of  kings, 
the  ruler  of  the  worlds  and  on  earth  the  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour.''^  It  may  be  observed,  by  the  way,  that  the 
pope,  in  wearing  three  crowns,  whereas  all  other  monarchs 
wear  but  one,  is  supposed  to  refer  to  his  three  kinds  of  sove- 
reignty. The  first,  over  his  own  dominions;  the  second,  over 
the  kings  and  princes  of  the  whole  earth  ;  and  the  third,  over 
the  Church.  The  first  instance  of  the  pope  wearing  any  crown 
was  in  the  case  of  Damasus  II.  in  A.  D.  1048,  and  the  three 
crowns  were  not  adopted  till  the  time  of  Urban  V.  The  trea- 
sures employed  in  this  extraordinary  display  may  be  imagined 
from  the  fact,  that  the  value  of  the  tiara  worn  by  pope  Clement 
VIII.  was  estimated  at  500,000  pieces  of  gold,  equal  to  several 
millions  of  dollars.  (Ch.  of  Rome,  884,  &c.)  The  splendour 
and  costly  magnificence  of  this  ritual,  however,  in  itself,  would 
be  of  small  importance.  It  is  when  it  stands  connected  with 
the  claims  of  the  pope  to  be  the  vicar  of  Christ,  the  father  of 
kings  and  princes,  the  ruler  of  the  world,  the  dispenser  of 
thrones,  the  absolver  of  oaths  of  allegiance,  the  breaker-down 
and  builder-up  of  governments,  whose  feet  must  be  kissed  by 
those  who  approach  him,  who  is  placed  upon  the  altar  of  God 
and  adored  by  the  cardinals  upon  their  knees,  who  is  the  dis- 
penser of  pardon,  and  grace,  and  benediction,  so  that  it  is  of 
necessity  of  salvation  to  every  creature  to  be  subject  to  him, — 
it  is  in  connexion  with  these  marvellous,  stupendous  claims, 
that  the  ceremonies  of  his  coronation  are  interesting,  because 
we  thus  see  the  consistency  of  the  whole  mass  of  superhuman 
powers  which  the  superstition  of  the  dark  ages  has  heaped 
upon  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  are  the  better  enabled  to  estimate 
the  infallibility,  the  unchangeableness,  the  concord  and  the 
purity,  which  the  Church  of  Rome  would  fain  persuade  us  are 
all  her  own. 

Let  us  then,  beloved  brethren,   in  conclusion,  sum  up  the 
topics  of  these  last  three  lectures,  by  showing  you  their  bearing 


164  MODERN    POSITION 

not  only  on  the  principle  of  Roman  infallibility,  but  also  on  the 
general  proposition,  that  the  Reformation  has  exerted  a  power- 
ful influence,  even  on  the  Church  of  Rome  herself. 

1.  We  have  seen  the  equality  of  the  apostles,  the  equaUty 
of  the  primitive  bishops,  and  the  total  absence  of  any  thing 
that  looked  like  a  temporal  dominion.  Now  I  would  ask,  if 
the  Church  of  Rome  were  incapable  of  erring,  why  did  she  not 
continue  in  her  primitive  simplicity?  Why  did  she  avail  her- 
self of  the  ignorance  of  those  barbarian  nations  which  she 
converted  to  the  faith,  by  teaching  them  to  add  to  that  faith  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  pope's  dignity  and  power,  such  as  was 
utterly  unknown  for  more  than  six  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era?  But  again,  if  the  Church  of  Rome  was  from  the  begin- 
ning, as  they  say,  tenacious  of  the  apostolic  system,  I  ask, 
how  is  it  that  we  find  her  bishop  become  a  mighty  sovereign, 
keeping  kings  standing  barefoot  for  three  days  before  his  cas- 
tle gate,  compelling  emperors  and  empresses  to  receive  their 
crowns  from  his  feet,  and  making  the  proudest  monarchs 
tremble  before  him?  For  how  can  any  man  believe  that  this 
was  the  system  of  the  apostles?  Can  any  one  be  persuaded 
that  such  was  the  administration  of  that  Saviour,  who  said, 
"  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ?"  And  can  it  be  questioned, 
for  a  moment,  that  an  abuse  so  flagrant  as  this,  even  if  there 
had  been  no  other,  did  of  itself  call  loudly  for  the  work  of 
reformation? 

2.  But  we  have  also  seen  the  contrast  between  the  claims 
of  the  popes  since  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  their  bishops  and  their  clergy.  Two  successive  popes 
excommunicated  queen  Elizabeth,  and  absolved  her  subjects 
from  their  allegiance,  and  one  of  them  commanded  those  sub- 
jects to  join  the  king  of  Spain.  But  no  one  in  Great  Britain 
obeyed  them.  These  very  powers  were  openly  denied  by  the 
king  and  clergy  of  France,  and  the  pontiff'  was  obliged  to  be 
content  with  an  evasive  apology.    The  pope  absolved  the  French 


OF   THE    DOCTRINE.  165 

nation  from  their  allegiance  to  Louis  XVIII.  in  favour  of  Na- 
poleon, then  he  excommunicated  him  in  turn,  and  in  neither 
case  was  the  slightest  effect  produced  by  acts,  which  prior  to 
the  Reformation,  would  have  kindled  a  civil  war  in  any  part  of 
Europe.  Behold,  then,  brethren,  a  specimen  of  the  unity  and 
concord  of  which  our  Roman  brethren  boast  so  confidently. 
The  head  commands,  and  tlie  members  disobey.  The  vicar 
of  Christ  exercises  his  old  prerogatives,  and  his  own  people  do 
not  mind  him.  And  Dr.  Wiseman  himself,  after  beholding 
and  rejoicing  over  the  magnificent  coronation  of  the  pope,  and 
echoing  the  proclamation  which  styles  him  the  father  of  kings 
and  the  ruler  of  the  world,  goes  over  to  England,  and  gravely 
assures  his  auditory,  that  the  temporal  exercise  of  papal  sove- 
reignty is  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Roman  Catholic  system. 

3.  But  lastly,  what  shall  we  say  to  the  candour  and  the 
frank  dealing  of  those,  who,  like  Dr.  Wiseman,  undertake  to 
declare  the  real  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church  to  the  world? 
How  are  we  to  account  for  their  repeating  continually  that 
they  are  unchanged,  and  vnchangeable,  and  all  united  in  sen- 
timent, when  the  plainest  historical  evidence,  furnished  by  the 
popes  themselves,  stands  openly  against  them?  How  shall  we 
explain  this  strange  contradiction:  the  popes  saying  one  thing, 
the  bishops  and  the  priests  saying  the  very  opposite,  and  yet 
both  agreeing  to  keep  the  peace?  It  is  said  by  many,  that  this 
is  done  for  the  purpose  of  regaining  their  lost  influence  and 
power,  by  an  accommodation  of  their  doctrines  to  the  temper 
of  the  age,  until  they  feel  strong  enough  to  enforce  their  for- 
mer dominion.  It  is  supposed  that  the  popes  renew  their 
claims  from  time  to  time,  for  the  sake  of  consistency;  and 
that  the  priests  are  suffered  to  teach  the  very  contrary  for  the 
sake  of  policy,  until  the  nations  who  have  burst  their  chains 
are  again  bound  with  them,  and  the  rulers  of  states  and  king- 
doms shall  again  be  compelled  to  bow  before  the  universal 
monarch  of  the  triple  crown.    For  myself,  brethren,  unwilling 


166 


CONCLUSION. 


as  I  should  be  to  impeach  the  candour  of  any  man,  I  must  ac- 
knowledge that  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  strange  anoma- 
ly on  any  other  hypothesis.  For  the  facts  are  undeniable, 
and  must  lead  to  one  of  these  conclusions.  Either  the  unity 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  this  fundamental  point  exists  no 
longer,  or  the  popes  and  the  priesthood  must  have  a  secret 
understanding,  which  resolves  this  open  diversity  into  the 
necessity  for  a  temporary  disguise.  Doubtless,  they  imagine 
it  to  be  all  right,  and  think  their  despotism  quite  preferable 
to  our  freedom.  But  for  us,  who  desire  to  judge  according 
to  the  only  infallible  standard,  the  written  Word  of  God,  the 
counsel  of  the  great  apostle  should  be  our  guide:  "Stand  fast 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  you  free,  and  be 
not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage." 

The  subject  allotted  to  our  next  lecture,  and  which  is  directly 
connected  with  the  present,  is  the  principle  of  anathema  and 
persecution,  which  is  unhappily  engrafted  upon  the  Church  of 
Rome  as  an  article  of  faith,  and  which  perhaps,  more  than 
any  thing  else,  renders  her  power  an  object  of  fearful  appre- 
hension to  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world.  This  subject  shall 
be  treated  as  fairly  and  as  kindly  as  possible,  brethren,  because 
it  is  no  part  of  my  desire  to  present  painful  facts,  any  farther 
than  they  are  necessm-y  for  the  understanding  of  established 
principles.  My  object  is  to  set  before  you  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  not  the  vices,  the  cruelties,  or  the  enor- 
mities, which  may  have  been  exhibited  by  individuals  amongst 
her  priesthood  or  her  people.  And  therefore,  as,  in  the  present 
lecture,  I  have  been  silent  on  the  point  of  the  lives  of  certain 
popes,  so,  in  the  next,  1  shall  not  promise  to  enter,  needlessly, 
into  the  details  of  the  inquisition,  or  any  other  variety  of  mode 
in  which  the  coercion  or  punishment  of  heretics  was  attempted. 
Believing,  in  my  conscience,  that  the  principles  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, particularly  as  established  in  the  English  branch,  are  the 
pure  and  essential  principles  of  Christianity,  and  regarding  the 


CONCLUSION.  167 

Church  of  Rome  with  none  but  the  kindest  feelings,  it  has  long 
been  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  for  them,  that  they  might 
understand  and  forsake  the  errors  of  their  system.  I  have  no 
sympathy  with  those  who  wish  to  see  that  Church  destroyed, 
or  oppressed,  or  treated  in  any  way  unjustly  :  God  forbid  !  for 
it  is  of  apostolic  origin,  it  continued  long  pure  in  faith,  and  it 
still  retains  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  true  Christian 
creed,  notwithstanding  its  manifold  corruptions.  But  I  would 
help  them,  if  I  could,  to  discover  the  perilous  changes,  which 
the  love  of  priestly  power,  and  the  superstitions  of  the  darker 
ages,  brought  in  upon  them ;  and  I  should  rejoice  with  joy  un- 
speakable, if  I  might  be  permitted  to  behold  the  day,  which 
should  bring  them  and  every  other  part  of  Christendom,  with- 
in the  blessed  circle  of  primitive  unity,  according  to  the  pure 
standard  of  the  Gospel  of  peace.  But  although  I  may  not 
live  to  see  so  happy  a  consummation,  may  the  Lord  hasten  it 
in  his  own  good  time,  and  to  his  great  and  ever  blessed  name, 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  all  the  glory. 


LECTURE  IX. 

Rom.  xii.  14. — Bless  and  curse  not. 

Such,  my  brethren,  was  the  solemn  injunction  of  the  great 
apostle  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Church  of  Rome;  an  injunction 
so  characteristic  of  that  Gospel  which  is  the  message  of  peace 
and  good  will  to  men,  and  so  plainly  in  accordance  with  the 
sacred  mission  of  that  Redeemer  who  was  the  Prince  of  peace, 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  entire  circle  of  her  errors  which 
seems  to  me  more  awfully  inconsistent  with  the  Word  and 
Spirit  of  God,  than  her  open  and  declared  opposition  to  it.  I 
speak  not  of  the  acts  of  her  pontiffs,  her  bishops,  or  her  peo- 
ple; but  I  speak  of  the  principle  which  she  has  incorporated 
into  her  very  creed,  as  an  article  of  faith,  by  which  the 
solemn  pronouncing  of  a  curse,  in  the  form  of  anathema, 
against  all  who  refuse  to  adopt  her  whole  system,  is  made  the 
duty  of  every  soul  belonging  to  her.  In  direct  connexion  with 
this,  stands  the  doctrine  of  persecution  and  extirpation  of  here- 
tics, so  long  practised  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  enjoined 
as  a  work  of  the  highest  merit.  And  to  the  same  principle, 
only  a  little  farther  extended,  we  are  obliged  to  trace  the  hor- 
rible institution  of  the  Inquisition.  For  although  this  has  been 
abolished  within  the  last  thirty  years — nay,  although  many 
deny  that  it  could  ever  have  been  justly  charged  upon  the 
Church  of  Rome,  yet  we  shall  find  it  to  have  been  the  positive 
work  of  her  pontiffs,  adopted  and  cherished  by  multitudes  of 
her  priesthood,  so  that  the  question  will  remain  to  be  decided: 


PfilNCIPLES    OF    PERSECUTION.  169 

Who  are  the  best  authorities  for  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Church — the  popes,  and  the  whole  of  Italy,  Spain,  and  Portu- 
gal, including,  at  one  period,  a  portion  of  France  herself;  or 
the  modern  Roman  Catholics  of  France,  Germany,  and  Great 
Britain?  But  be  this  point  settled  as  it  may,  one  fact  must  be 
established  by  every  fair  examination  of  the  subject :  namely, 
that  religious  intolerance  is  the  genius  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  while  toleration  has  been  purely,  under  God,  the  work 
of  the  reformers. 

In  order,  however,  that  we  may  discern  how  far  the  princi- 
ple of  persecution  has  been  engrafted  on  the  creed  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  how  much  of  it  remains  at  the  present 
day,  I  shall  begin  by  considering  the  anathema,  or  solemn 
curse,  denounced  upon  heretics  by  the  creed  of  pope  Pius  IV., 
which  is  the  acknowledged  creed  of  all  Roman  Catholics  with- 
out exception. 

Secondly,  I  shall  explain  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term 
anathema,  as  practically  understood  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  the  extent  and  mode  to  which  it  has  been  applied  by  the 
Council  of  Trent. 

Thirdly,  I  shall  set  forth  some  of  the  acts  of  popes  and 
councils,  in  procuring  what  they  called  a  holy  war  upon  here- 
tics, in  order  to  destroy  them  by  open  violence. 

Fourthly,  I  shall  present  a  sketch  of  the  rise,  progress  and 
authority  of  the  Inquisition,  which  was  intended  to  extirpate 
heretics  by  process  of  law,  just  as  the  holy  wars  were  intended 
to  extirpate  them  by  the  sword. 

And  lastly,  I  shall  state  the  present  position  of  the  whole 
doctrine. 

I  need  scarcely  say,  my  brethren,  that  no  subject  belonging 
to  the  Roman  controversy  is  more  painful,  and  none  needs  to 
be  handled  with  greater  caution  and  fairness  than  this  :  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  of  which  a  thorough  un- 
derstanding is  more  vitally  important  to  the  peace  and  secu- 


170  PRINCIPLES    OF    PERSECUTION. 

rity  of  Christendom.  The  Roman  Catholics  themselves  are 
as  deeply  interested  in  this  matter  as  any  other  body  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  whatever;  because  they  are  scattered  all 
over  the  world,  and  live  under  a  variety  of  governments,  the 
rulers  of  which,  although  Christians,  by  no  means  agree 
with  them  in  religious  sentiment.  Hence  it  is  notorious,  that 
in  many  parts  of  Switzerland  and  Germany,  in  Prussia,  Den- 
mark, and  Sweden,  in  the  East  and  West  Indies,  in  England, 
Ireland,  and  Scotland,  in  the  province  of  Canada,  and  in  the 
United  States,  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  in- 
debted for  all  their  Christian  liberty  to  the  doctrine  of  tole- 
ration. But  if  toleration  amongst  Christians  be  right,  per- 
secution must  be  wrong;  and  the  argument  which  belongs  to 
the  discussion  of  the  point  is  of  such  deep  practical  import- 
ance, that  all  should  be  ready  to  lay  aside  their  prejudices  and 
passions,  in  order  to  examine  it  according  to  the  light  of  truth 
and  reason,  in  just  subordination  to  the  authority  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

1.  I  proceed  then,  brethren,  according  to  the  course  pro- 
posed, to  show,  that  the  pronouncing  a  positive  anathema^  or 
solemn  curse,  upon  all  heresies,  is  a  part  of  the  modern  creed 
of  the  Church  of  Rome :  and  for  this  purpose,  I  shall  quote  the 
formulary  universally  acknowledged  amongst  all  Roman  Ca- 
tholics, viz:  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  in  the  latter  clause  of 
which  we  read  as  follows:  "I  profess  and  undoubtedly  re- 
ceive all  things  delivered,  defined,  and  declared,  by  the  sacred 
Canons  and  General  Councils,  and  particularly  by  the  holy 
Council  of  Trent;  and  I  also  condemn,  reject,  and  anathema- 
tize all  things  contrary  thereto,  and  all  heresies  whatsoever, 
condemned  and  anathematized  by  the  Church."  A  little  far- 
ther on,  the  creed  declares  this  to  be  a  part  of  that  "true  Ca- 
tholic faith,  out  of  which  none  can  he  saved.'''' 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  each  individual  member  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  bound  to  unite  with  the  Councils,  and  es- 


THE    ANATHEMA.  171 

pecially  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  pronouncing  this  anathema, 
or  solemn  curse.  And  of  so  much  importance  is  this  princi- 
ple held,  that  the  famous  Delahogue,  in  the  treatise  now  used 
as  the  class-book  in  the  Irish  Roman  Catholic  college  at 
Maynooth,  includes  it  in  his  formal  definition  of  the  Church. 
"  The  Church  of  Christ,"  says  he,  "  is  a  Church,  teaching, 
judging,  and  anathematizing.''''  "This  supposes,"  continues 
the  author,  "  that  the  subjects  of  the  Church  are  bound  to  obey 
her  voice,  and  that  if  they  prove  rebellious,  she  can  cast  them 
out  of  her  bosom."  .  .  .  "Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  all  those  heretics  which  the  Church  casts  out,  no 
longer  belong  to  her.  And  on  this  very  account,  they  can 
have  no  hope  of  salvation.''''  (Tract,  de  Ecc.  p.  15.)  "It  is 
manifest,"  saith  he  elsewhere,  "  that  in  this  sentence  of  eter- 
nal death,  we  must  include  not  only  those  whom  the  Church 
has  cast  out,  but  those  also  who  have  left  he7\"  (lb.  p.  16.) 
Mark,  brethren,  I  pray  you,  that  the  Church's  anathema  is 
here  called,  in  a  book  of  established  modern  authority,  a 
*'  sentence  of  eternal  death;''''  and  with  this  we  shall  find  the 
constant  usage  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  in  full  accord- 
ance. 

Thus,  for  example,  pope  Gregory  VII.,  who  dealt  very 
extensively  in  ecclesiastical  censures,  expresses  himself. 
Speaking  of  a  bishop  whom  he  had  anathematized,  and  warn- 
ing the  inferior  clergy  to  have  no  communion  with  him,  he 
saith,  "  we  have  excommunicated  him,  and  have  separated 
him  from  the  body  of  holy  Church.  For  which  reason  we 
order  you,  by  our  apostolical  authority,  to  shake  off  his  yoke 
from  your  necks,  lest  you  should  also  be  made  the  servants 
of  the  devil,  whose  member  he  has  now  become."  (Greg. 
Epist.  18.   Hard.  Cone,  Tom.  6.  pars  1.  p.  1361.) 

Again  :,"  Separate  them,"  saith  the  same  pope,  (ib.  1275,  E.) 
"  from  the  body  and  communion  of  the  Church,  by  our  apos- 
tolical authority,  as  stricken  by  the  sword  of  anathema." 


172 


THE    ANATHEMA. 


Again,  the  same  pope  threatens  the  obnoxious  Carthagenians 
in  these  words :  "If  you  do  not  perform  this  precept,  I  will 
strike  you  justly  with  the  sword  of  anathema,  and  send  forth 
against  you  the  curse  of  St,  Peter,  and  my  ownJ'^  (lb. 
1215.  A.) 

Again,  speaking  of  the  clergy  of  Ravenna,  he  saith  :  "  We 
Xiut  them  off  with  the  sword  of  anathema,  and  cast  them,  as 
putrid  members,  out  of  the  whole  body  of  Christ,  which  is 
the  Catholic  Church." 

And  again,  speaking  of  another  obnoxious  person,  pope 
Gregory  saith,  (ib.  1418.  D.)  "which,  if  he  shall  refuse,  he 
will  provoke  against  himself  i/te  anger  and  fury  of  Almighty 
God,  through  our  apostolic  excommunication,''''  Now,  in 
these  various  passages,  we  have  the^  authority  of  the  pope 
himself,  for  the  meaning  of  the  sentence  of  anathema.  For 
he  considers  it  plainly  to  be  cutting  men  altogether  off,  as 
mortified  members,  and  as  with  a  sword,  from  the  body  of 
Christ;  the  giving  them  over  as  members  of  Satan,  and  the 
bringing  down  upon  them  the  wrath  and  fury  of  God.  What 
more  grievous  curse  could  possibly  be  allotted  to  man  than 
thisi 

I  have  been  thus  particular,  brethren,  to  explain  the  meaning 
of  the  term,  because  modern  Roman  Catholics  are  in  the  habit 
of  softening  it  down,  so  as  to  make  it  signify  nothing  more  than 
the  ordinary  excommunication  practised  amongst  other  Church- 
es. Whereas,  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  there  is  the  lesser  ex- 
communication, and  the  greater  excommunication,  and  the  ana- 
thema is  held  to  be  the  highest  of  all.  Perhaps,  however, 
the  most  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  character  of  this  sen- 
tence will  be  found  in  the  form  of  its  administration,  which 
is  as  follows,  in  the  words  of  the  Roman  pontifical.  (Philpot's 
Let.  to  Butler,  Supplement,  p.  558.)  "  By  the  judgment  of 
God  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
of  St.  Peter,  prince  of  the  apostles,  and  all  the  saints,  and  by 


THE    ANATHEMA.  173 

the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  con- 
ferred by  God  upon  us,  we  separate  this  man  from  the  recep- 
tion of  the  precious  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  from 
the  society  of  all  Christians,  and  exclude  him  from  the 
thresholds  of  holy  mother  Church  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and 
we  decree  him  to  be  excommunicated  and  anathematized,  and 
adjudge  him  to  be  damned  with  the  devil  and  his  angels  and 
all  reprobates,  to  eternal  fire;  until  he  recover  from  the  snares 
of  the  devil,  and  return  to  amendment  and  repentance,  and 
satisfy  the  Church  which  he  has  injured ;  delivering  him  to 
Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  his  spirit  may  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  judgment." 

The  effect  of  this  sentence  is  supposed  to  be,  that  Satan 
immediately  takes  possession  of  his  prey ;  for  the  form  ap- 
pointed to  restore  him  to  the  Church  contains  an  exorcism  for 
the  purpose  of  expelling  the  evil  spirit.  Thus,  after  the  party 
has  professed  his  belief  in  the  articles  of  the  creed,  kneeling 
on  his  knees,  the  pontiff,  wearing  his  mitre,  rises  from  his 
seat,  and  says  over  him,  still  kneeling,  these  words :  "  I  ex- 
orcise thee,  O  unclean  spirit,  by  God  the  Father  Almighty, 
and  by  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  that 
thou  depart  from  this  servant  of  God,  whom  God  and  our 
Lord  vouchsafes  to  rescue  from  thy  errors  and  deceits,  and  to 
recall  to  the  holy  mother,  the  Catholic  and  apostolic  Church." 
(lb.  559.)  The  light,  therefore,  in  which  those  are  regarded, 
who  are  under  the  anathema  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  that 
of  persons  cut  off  from  the  Church,  condemned  to  final  dam- 
nation, and  possessed  by  Satan  even  in  the  present  life,  unless 
they  seek,  by  penitence  and  submission,  to  be  reconciled  to 
her. 

You  would  probably  infer,  brethren,  that  however  vast  and 
awful  the  power  of  pronouncing  this  sentence  of  anathema 
may  be,  it  is  at  least  one  which  the  Church  of  Rome  does  not 
pretend  to  exercise  upon  any  but  those  who  belong  to  her  own 

U2 


174  ANATHEMAS    OP 

communion.  In  this,  nevertheless,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  you 
would  be  quite  mistaken.  The  Church  of  Rome  considers 
herself  the  rightful  head  and  mistress  of  the  whole  world,  and 
therefore  all  who  refuse  to  adopt  her  faith,  and  to  bow  to  her 
authority,  are  styled  heretics,  and  have  the  accumulated 
horrors  of  all  anathemas  poured  down  upon  them.  In  proof 
of  this  assertion,  I  quote  the  declaration  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  in  her  catechism  drawn  up  for  universal  parochial 
instruction :  "  Heretics  and  schismatics,"  says  this  catechism, 
"  belong  to  the  Church,  only  as  deserters  belong  to  the  army 
from  which  they  have  deserted.  It  is  not,  however,  to  be  de- 
nied, that  they  are  still  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Chu?'ch,  inasmuch  as  they  are  liable  to  have  judgment  past 
on  their  opinions,  to  be  visited  with  spiritual  punishments, 
and  denounced  with  anathema.''^  (p.  94  of  Am.  edition  of 
Cat.  of  Coun.  of  Trent.)  And  as  a  proof  of  the  terrible  abun- 
dance in  which  the  Church  of  Rome  dispenses  her  maledic- 
tions, the  single  Council  of  Trent  passed  no  less  than  one 
hundred  and  twenty-six  distinct  anathemas,  of  which  every 
Christian  denomination  amongst  the  reformers  was  designed 
to  have  a  considerable  number,  and  our  own  Church  would 
come  in  for  no  small  share.  Perhaps  a  ^q\y  of  these  anathe- 
mas may  as  well  be  translated  for  your  information,  from 
which  you  may  readily  infer  the  character  of  the  rest. 

"VII.  SESS.     CANON  I.     (p.  27.) 

"  If  any  one  shall  say,  that  the  sacraments  of  the  new  law 
were  not  all  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  or  that  they 
are  more  or  less  than  seven,  viz :  baptism,  confirmation,  the 
eucharist,  penance,  extreme  unction,  orders,  and  matrimony; 
or  that  any  of  these  is  not  truly  and  properly  a  sacrament, 
let  him  be  anathema.''  Here,  brethren,  there  are  three 
assertions  which  we  maintain,  all  visited  with  this  tremendous 
sentence,  a  three-fold  curse  in  one. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT.  175 

"  XIII.  SES.     CAN.  I. 

Again :  "  If  any  one  shall  deny  that  in  the  most  holy 
sacrament  of  the  eucharist,  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  truly,  really,  and  substantially  contained,  to- 
gether with  his  soul,  and  divinity,  and  consequently  all  of 
Christ,  but  shall  say  that  they  are  in  it  only  in  sign,  or  in 
figure,  or  in  efficacy,  let  him  be  anathema.'''' 

CANON    II. 

Again :  "  If  any  one  shall  say,  that  in  the  holy  sacrament  of 
the  eucharist,  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  remains, 
together  with  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
shall  deny  that  wonderful  and  singular  conversion  of  the  whole 
substance  of  the  bread  into  the  body,  and  of  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  wine  into  the  blood,  the  appearances  of  bread  and 
wine  alone  remaining,  which  conversion  truly  the  (Roman) 
Catholic  Church  most  aptly  calls  transubstantiation,  let  him  be 
anathema.^'' 

CANON    III. 

Again :  "  If  any  one  shall  deny,  that  in  the  venerable  sacra- 
ment of  the  eucharist,  the  whole  of  Christ  is  contained  under 
either  kind,  and  in  all  the  parts  of  either  kind  after  the  separa- 
tion is  made,  let  him  be  anathema.'''' 

CANON    VI. 

And  again :  "  If  any  one  shall  say,  that  in  the  holy  sacra- 
ment of  the  eucharist,  Christ,  the  only  Son  of  God,  is  not  to  be 
adored  with  divine  worship,  even  externally,  and  that  he  is 
not  to  be  venerated  by  a  peculiar  festive  celebration,  nor  car- 
ried about  in  public  procession,  according  to  the  laudable  and 
universal  rite  of  the  Church ;  or  that  he  is  not  to  be  publicly 
held  forth  to  the  people  to  be  worshipped,  and  that  his  adorers 
are  idolaters,  let  him  be  anathema.^'' 


176  PERSECUTION   ENJOINED 

Now  in  these  four  canons,  there  are  contained  nine  distinct 
propositions,  ot"  which  our  Church  holds  eight,  and  the  Lu- 
theran Church  holds  the  whole,  each  of  which  propositions  is 
subjected  to  the  awful  sentence  of  the  curse.  And  you  will 
observe,  brethren,  that  the  anathema  is  not  pronounced  upon 
the  doctrine,  but  upon  the  persons  tcho  hold  the  doctrine;  so 
that  in  this  small  portion  of  the  acts  of  this  last  council,  you 
and  I,  with  millions  more  of  professed  Christians,  are  under 
eleven  distinct  anathemas,  three  belonging  to  the  canon  first 
quoted,  and  eight  belonging  to  the  four  others.  There  are.  as 
I  have  said,  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  of  these  anathemas, 
explicitly  put  forth  by  this  council;  and  nearly  all  of  them  are 
like  those  which  I  have  cited  in  this  respect,' that  each  anathe- 
ma is  declared  at  the  end  of  several  propositions,  to  every  one 
of  which  it  is  grammatically  applicable.  So  that  it  is  probable, 
were  we  to  count  the  separate  propositions,  we  should  find 
that  not  one  hundred  and  twenty-six,  but  nearly  three  hundred 
of  these  solemn  and  awful  curses  have  been  fulminated  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  against  the  rest  of  Christendom.  Now,  when 
you  recollect  the  effects  supposed  to  follow  one  single  anathema, 
pronounced  by  one  single  bishop,  and  then  remember  that  the 
concluding  session  of  this  famous  council  was  attended  by 
two  hundred  and  sixty-five  of  the  highest  dignitaries  of  their 
Church,  and  that  the  whole  was  afterwards  solemnly  ratified 
and  confirmed  by  the  pope  himself,  you  will  have  some  faint 
idea  of  the  horrible  condition  in  which  a  sincere  and  intelligent 
Roman  Catholic  believes  us  all  to  be  plunged,  by  our  daring  to 
worship  God  according  to  the  pure  light  of  his  own  Word,  and 
the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  fathers.  And  you  will  thus  be 
prepared,  brethren,  to  understand  the  next  step  in  our  melan- 
choly history,  namely,  how  naturally  the  sivord  of  anathema 
stands  connected  with  the  sword  of  persecution,*^ 

*  For  authorities  against  the  temporal  sword,  see  Picart,  Tom.  2, 
Memoires  Historiques  concernant  I'Inquisition,  p.  4,  &c. 


BY   A    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  177 

I  shall  not  occupy  your  time  by  noticing  the  advances  made 
towards  the  principle  of  religious  persecution,  prior  to  the  13th 
century,  but  shall  come  at  once  to  the  doctrine  laid  down  by 
the  great  council  of  Lateran,  A.  D.  1215,  under  pope  Inno- 
cent III.,  which  fixes  the  principle  upon  the  Church  of  Rome  in 
the  most  direct  and  unquestionable  terms,  inasmuch  as  this 
was  not  only  a  general  council,  but  the  very  largest  that  ever 
assembled  together.  The  language  of  this  decree  on  the  sub- 
ject of  heretics  will  require  some  patience,  brethren,  for  it  is 
somewhat  long;  but  if  you  desire  a  thorough  understanding  o^ 
the  point  before  us,  you  will  find  it  well  worth  attention;  it  is 
as  follows:     (Hard.  Con.  Tom.  VII.  p.  19,  D.) 

"We  excommunicate  and  anathematize  every  heresy  which 
lifts  itself  up  against  the  holy,  orthodox,  and  Catholic  faith, 
condemning  all  heretics  by  whatever  name  they  are  known." 

"  And  those  whom  we  have  condemned  are  left  to  the  secu- 
lar princes  and  their  officers,  to  be  punished  by  the  penalty 
due;  the  clergy  being  first  degraded  from  their  orders,  in  such 
wise  that  the  properly  of  those  who  are  thus  condemned  shall 
be  confiscated,  if  they  be  laymen,  but  if  they  are  of  the  clergy, 
their  property  shall  be  applied  to  those  Churches  from  which 
they  have  received  their  stipends." 

"  And  whoever  shall  be  found  under  suspicion  only,  if  they 
cannot  prove  their  innocence  by  a  satisfactory  purgation  ac- 
cording to  the  quality  of  the  person  and  the  character  of  the 
suspicion,  they  shall  be  struck  with  the  sword  of  anathema, 
and  shall  be  avoided  by  all,  until  they  make  due  satisfaction ; 
and  if  they  remain  thus  excommunicated  for  one  year,  then 
they  shall  be  condemned  as  heretics." 

"  And  the  secular  powers  shall  be  admonished  and  exhorted, 
and  if  necessary,  they  shall  he  compelled  by  ecclesiastical 
censure,  whatever  offices  they  fill,  if  they  desire  to  be  them- 
selves respected  and  held  faithful,  publicly  to  take  an  oath  for 
the  defence  of  the  faith,  that  they  will,  bonajide,  endeavour  to 


178  PERSECUTION    ENJOINED 

exterminate  from  the  lands  subject  to  their  jurisdiction,  accord- 
ing to  their  power,  all  heretics  denounced  by  the  Church; 
and  let  every  one,  without  exception,  entering  upon  any  office, 
whether  spiritual  or  temporal,  be  held  to  confirm  this  regulation 
by  oath." 

"  But  if  the  temporal  lord,  being  required  and  admonished 
by  the  Church,  shall  neglect  to  purge  his  territory  from  this 
heretical  uncleanness,  he  shall  be  bound  with  the  chain  of 
excommunication  by  the  metropolitan  and  the  other  provincial 
bishops.  And  if  he  does  not  render  satisfaction  within  a  year, 
let  it  be  reported  to  the  sovereign  pontiff,  in  order  that  he  may 
declare  his  subjects  absolved  from  their  allegiance  to  him,  and 
may  expose  his  territory  to  be  occupied  by  Catholics,  who, 
after  the  heretics  are  driven  out,  may  possess  it  without  con- 
tradiction, and  preserve  it  in  the  purity  of  the  faith.  The 
rights  of  the  sovereign  lord,  however,  shall  not  be  prejudiced 
herein,  provided  he  puts  no  obstacle  nor  any  impediment  in  the 
way.  And  the  same  law  shall  be  kept  in  the  case  of  those 
who  have  no  chief  lords  above  them." 

"  Those  Catholics,  who,  under  the  character  of  crusaders, 
have  taken  up  arms  to  exterminate  heretics,  shall  enjoy  the 
same  indulgence,  and  the  same  sacred  privileges  as  those  who 
have  gone  to  the  succour  of  the  holy  land." 

"  And  we  further  decree,  that  the  believers,  the  receivers, 
the  defenders  and  the  favourers  of  heretics,  be  subjected  to 
excommunication;  and  that  after  any  such  shall  be  notified  of 
his  excommunication,  if  he  fail  to  render  satisfaction  within 
one  year,  he  shall  forthwith  be  declared  infamous,  incapable 
of  holding  any  public  office,  as  well  as  of  electing  others 
thereto,  and  also  incapable  of  giving  testimony.  And  he 
shall  further  be  declared  incapable  of  making  his  will,  and 
shall  neither  be  allowed  to  give  away  his  property  by  will, 
nor  to  receive  any  property  by  inheritance  from  others^ 

"  Moreover,  if  such  person  be  a  judge,  his  sentence 


BY    A    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  179 

shall  have  no  force,  nor  shall  causes  he  any  longer  tried  5e- 
fore  him.  If  he  be  an  advocate,  his  exercise  of  ojlce  shall 
not  be  admitted.  If  he  be  a  notary,  the  instruments  drawn 
up  by  him  shall  be  of  no  weight,  but  shall  be  condemned  with 
their  condemned  author.  And  in  all  other  like  cases,  we 
command  that  the  like  rule  be  observed.  But  if  he  be  of  the 
clergy,  let  him  be  deposed  from  all  benefit  and  exercise  of  his 
office,  in  order  that  where  the  guilt  is  the  greater,  the  penalty 
may  be  the  more  severe." 

"And  to  these  pestilent  heretics,  the  clergy  may  not 

administer  any  of  the  sacraments,  neither  may  they  presume 
to  give  them  Christian  burial,  neither  may  they  receive  of 
them  any  offerings  or  alms ;  otherwise  such  clergy  offending 
herein  shall  be  deprived  of  their  office,  to  which  they  shall 
never  be  restored  but  by  the  special  grace  of  the  apostolic 


"  And  inasmuch  as  some  of  these  heretics,  under  the  mask 
of  piety,  but,  as  saith  the  apostle,  denying  the  power  thereof, 
pretend  that  they  have  authority  to  preach ;  notwithstanding 
the  apostle  saith :  How  shall  they  preach  unless  they  be  sent ; 
therefore  all  who  presume  to  usurp  the  office  of  preacher, 
either  publicly  or  privately,  being  either  prohibited,  or  not 
sent  by  the  authority  of  the  pope  or  of  the  Catholic  bishop  of 
the  place,  shall  be  bound  by  the  chain  of  excommunication; 
and  unless  they  speedily  repent,  shall  be  visited  by  the  other 
pains  and  penalties." 

"And  we  add  further,  that  every  archbishop  or  bishop,  by 
himself  or  by  his  archdeacon,  or  other  fit  and  honest  persons, 
shall  go  round  his  own  diocese,  wherever  it  is  reported  that 
there  are  any  heretics,  twice  or  at  least  once  in  every  year, 
and  shall  compel  three  or  more  men  of  good  standing,  or  if  he 
think  it  expedient,  even  the  whole  neighbourhood,  to  make 
oath,  that  if  any  of  them  shall  know  of  heretics  in  that  place. 


180  FERSECUTION    ENJOINED 

or  others  holding  secret  conventicles,  or  dissenting  in  faith  or 
morals  from  the  common  conversation  of  the  faithful,  he  will 
take  care  to  inform  the  bishop  concerning  them.  And  the 
bishop  himself  shall  call  the  accused  before  him,  and  if  they 
shall  fail  to  purge  themselves  from  the  crime,  or  after  their 
purgation  shall  relapse  into  their  old  perfidy,  let  them  be  pun- 
ished according  to  the  canon.  And  if  any,  through  their  cul- 
pable obstinacy,  reject  the  obligation  of  such  an  oath,  and  re- 
fuse to  take  it  upon  them,  let  them,  on  this  very  ground,  be 
taken  for  heretics." 

"Therefore  we  decree  and  order,  and  in  virtue  of  obedience 
strictly  command,  that  the  bishops  diligently  look  to  these  re- 
gulations being  strictly  observed  throughout  their  dioceses,  if 
they  would  themselves  avoid  the  vengeance  of  the  canon.  For 
if  any  bishop  shall  prove  negligent  or  remiss  in  the  duty  of 
purging  his  diocese  from  the  leaven  of  heretical  pravity,  and 
this  can  be  proved  by  sufficient  testimony,  let  him  be  deposed 
from  the  episcopal  office,  and  a  fit  man  be  put  in  his  place, 
who  both  can  and  will  confound  all  heretical  wickedness." 

I  am  afraid,  brethren,  that  you  have  found  this  extract  te- 
dious, but  I  knew  not  how  to  abbreviate  or  omit  any  part  of 
it,  in  justice  to  the  subject;  since  it  is  the  great  document  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  upon  the  point  of  persecution.  And 
you  perceive,  that  by  the  highest  authority  of  their  system,  that 
of  a  General  Council,  consisting  of  twelve  hundred  prelates 
under  the  immediate  presidency  of  the  pope  himself,  all  here- 
tics are  not  only  denounced  with  the  tremendous  sentence  of 
anathema,  but  are  further  made  liable  to  be  stripped  of  their 
property,  driven  from  their  homes  by  violence,  pronounced 
infamous,  made  incapable  of  giving  testimony,  and  of  either 
bequeathing  property  to  others,  or  receiving  any  inheritance 
themselves.  The  heretical  judge  shall  no  longer  hear  causes, 
the  heretical  lawyer  shall  no  longer  be  allowed  to  plead.  The 
heretical  notary  even  destroys  the  force  of  the  instruments 


BY    A    GENERAL    COUNCIL.  181 

which  concern  the  rights  of  others.  VoKinteers  are  encou- 
raged to  take  up  the  sword  against  them  by  the  promise  of  pe- 
cuhar  privileges ;  princes  and  rulers  are  compelled  to  swear 
that  they  will  exterminate  them ;  and  bishops  and  archbishops 
are  obliged  to  perambulate  their  dioceses  every  year  for  the 
purpose  of  inquiring  after  them,  under  the  penalty  of  losing 
their  own  offices,  if  they  presume  to  show  the  smallest  indul- 
gence, or  even  remissness,  in  the  work  of  persecution. 

The  zeal  of  this  famous  Council,  and  the  vigorous  efforts  of 
the  pope,  however  ill  directed,  were  not,  it  must  be  granted, 
without  cause;  for  it  appears  that  there  were  immense  num- 
bers and  many  denominations  of  what  they  called  heretics,  at 
the  time.  Of  their  tenets,  indeed,  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossi- 
ble, to  speak  precisely ;  because  the  writers  on  their  side  have 
not  come  down  to  us;  and  those  on  the  side  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  are  not  in  the  position  of  disinterested  witnesses.  The 
Albigenses,  the  VValdenses,  and  the  poor  men  of  Lyons,  oc- 
cupy the  most  prominent  place  in  the  chronicles  of  that  age. 
And  if  the  account  which  the  modern  Waldenses  give  of  the 
matter  be  worthy  of  credit,  we  should  all  agree,  that  what  the 
Council  of  Lateran  stigmatized  as  heresy,  was  a  far  purer 
faith  than  their  own. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  vast  efforts  were  thought  necessary 
for  their  suppression.  Armies  were  raised  against  them  at  the 
earnest  exhortations  of  the  pope,  the  soldiers  of  which  wore 
the  sign  of  the  cross.  The  holy  crusade  of  the  Church  against 
the  heretics,  was  preached  from  the  pulpits  with  the  utmost  ve- 
hemence and  ardour;  and  as  an  incentive  to  the  courage  of 
the  recruits,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian,  Baronius,  relates, 
that  the  pope  gave  them  "a  full  remission  of  all  their  sins." 
(Baron.  13,  121.) 

The  same  author  details  many  facts  as  to  the  mode  of  con- 
ducting this  war  against  the  heretics,  which  would  shock  our 
modern  notions  of  humanity.    In  one  instance,  for  example,  he 


182  RISE    OF    THE    INQUISITION. 

mentions  the  case  of  180  men,  who,  he  says,  "preferred  being 
burned  aHve,  rather  than  think  rightly."  (lb.  156.)  So  large 
was  the  scale  on  which  this  work  of  heretical  ejxtermination 
was  conducted,  that  the  army  of  the  crusaders  under  Simon 
de  Montfort, amounted  at  one  time  to  300,000  men;  and  there 
is  not  a  page  in  the  history  of  the  world  more  deeply  stained 
with  cruelty,  barbarit}^,  and  foul  excess,  than  that  which  has 
commemorated  these  wars  miscalled  holy;  when  fanaticism 
and  superstition,  beneath  the  banner  of  papal  supremacy,  re- 
velled in  pillage  and  in  blood,  under  the  outraged  name  of  the 
Prince  of  peace. 

Besides  these  crusades  against  the  heretics,  however,  the 
pope  found  that  some  other  plan  must  be  devised  in  order  to 
carry  out  the  resolutions  of  the  Council  of  Lateran.  For  the 
latter  part  of  the  canon  which  I  have  cited,  in  which  the 
bishops  and  archbishops  were  commanded  to  become  inquisi- 
tors of  heresy,  and  to  perambulate  their  dioceses  every  year  for 
the  purpose  of  discovering  all  that  were  suspected  to  hold  he- 
retical sentiments,  was  not  obeyed  with  any  thing  like  the 
vigour  which  the  case  required.  In  order  to  remedy  this  de- 
fect, the  pope  undertook  to  appoint  inquisitors  of  his  own,  and 
to  send  them  into  the  suspected  districts,  to  hunt  the  heretics 
out  of  their  concealments,  and  subject  them  to  those  punish- 
ments which  had  already  been  established,  through  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  every  part  of  Europe.  And 
this  was  the  next  step  towards  the  establishment  of  the  Inqui- 
sition. 

To  show  how  this  part  of  the  work  was  carried  on,  we  find 
Baronius  stating,  in  one  place,  that  there  were  various  heretics 
of  both  sexes  in  Germany,  France,  and  Italy,  who  were  appre- 
hended and  burned  alive.  In  ihe  city  of  Argentine,  more  than 
eighty  were  arrested  in  A.  D.  1215,  of  whom  very  {ew  were 
found  innocent.  "And  these,"  saitli  the  historian,  with  admi- 
rable simplicity,  "brother  Conrad  of  Marpurg,  who  was  the 


RISE    OF    THE    INUUISITIOX.  183 

apostolic  inquisitor,  was  accustomed  to  prove,  by  obliging 
them  to  take  hold  of  red  hot  iron,  if  they  denied  their  heresy. 
And  as  many  of  them  as  were  burned  by  the  iron,  he  con- 
demned as  heretics,  and  delivered  them  to  the  secular  judg- 
ment to  be  burned  to  death.  Hence,  with  few  exceptions,"  con- 
tinues Baronius,  "  all  tvho  ivere  once  accused,  and  were  led  to 
his  tribunal  for  examination^  were  condemned  to  the  fames.'''' 
(lb.  p.  230.) 

Nay,  so  extreme  was  the  indignation  of  these  inquisitors 
against  heretics,  that  their  very  bones  were  not  suffered  to  rest 
quietly  in  their  graves.  Thus,  the  historian  relates,  that  one 
Al marie,  a  learned  Parisian  doctor,  who  had  many  followers, 
died  of  grief,  because  the  bishops  condemned  his  doctrines. 
His  disciples  were  burned  alive,  and  their  ashes  were  scattered 
on  the  dunghill.  But  this  did  not  suffice;  for  the  body  of 
Almaric  was  taken  out  of  the  grave,  and  burned  also.  (lb. 
225.)  This  became  afterwards  a  very  general  custom  with 
the  Inquisition. 

The  complete  establishment  of  this  tremendous  tribunal, 
however,  was  reserved  for  pope  Gregory  IX.  who,  A.  D- 
1233,  perfected  the  work  which  his  predecessors  had  success- 
fully begun,  by  setting  up  regular  pernmnent  inquisitors  in 
France,  Spain,  and  Italy.  A  specimen  of  the  course  taken  by 
the  inquisitors  of  Thoulouse,  as  given  by  Baronius,  may  be 
not  uninteresting. 

"Just  after  the  celebration  of  mass,  by  Raymond  the  bishop 
of  Thoulouse,  as  he  was  sitting  down  to  table  in  the  refectory," 
says  the  historian,  "it  was  told  him  that  a  certain  matron  of 
the  city,  surrounded  by  her  sons,  brethren  and  friends,  was 
dying  in  the  hands  of  heretics,  being  one  of  them  herself,  near 
the  house  of  the  inquisitors.  He  ran  to  the  house  immediately, 
and  found  the  fact  to  be  as  it  was  reported,  by  the  confession 
of  the  dying  woman  herself,  who  chose  to  die  and  be  saved  in 
her  heresy.     Accordingly,  he  condemned  her  forthwith,  and 


184  THE    I^'QUISITION 

delivered  her  to  the  secular  court,  the  officers  of  which  took 
her  in  the  bed  as  she  lay,  carried  her  to  the  fire,  and  burned 
her  joyfully.''^  These,  brethren,  are  the  very  words  of  the 
historian,  without  a  single  remark  of  disapprobation  or  sur- 
prise. Alas!  who  can  wonder  enough  at  the  spectacle  of 
Christian  priests,  condemning  a  woman  for  heresy  on  her  very 
death-bed,  and  joyfully  anticipating  the  stroke  of  nature,  by 
committing  her,  in  this  condition,  to  the  flames! 

But  I  may  not  dwell  any  longer  on  these  historical  notices. 
Rather  let  me  hasten  to  the  last  and  worst  form  of  this  inquisi- 
torial power,  established  in  Spain  under  Ferdinand  and  Isa- 
bella, a  few  years  before  the  time  when  Columbus  discovered 
our  new  world.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  objection  made 
by  the  pope  to  this  institution,  at  first ;  not,  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
because  of  its  cruelty,  or  its  unchristian  character,  but  because 
too  much  power  was  thrown  by  its  constitution  into  the  hands 
of  the  Spanish  sovereigns,  and  too  little  into  those  of  the  pope. 
These  objections,  however,  were  overcome;  and  in  A.  D. 
1483,  pope  Sixtus  IV.  formally  acknowledged  the  celebrated 
Dominican,  Torquemada,  as  Inquisitor  General  of  Spain,  and 
empowered  him,  by  a  bull,  to  establish  inferior  courts.  In  a 
few  years,  this  tremendous  tribunal  prospered  to  such  an  ex- 
tent, that  it  numbered  twenty  thousand  spies  and  informers, 
and  held  the  most  uncontrolled  and  absolute  empire  over  the 
whole  nation.  Any  person  accused  of  heresy  was  liable  to  be 
seized  without  the  possibility  of  redress,  and  without  knowing 
what  was  his  crime,  or  who  was  his  accuser.  He  was  hurried 
away  from  home  and  kindred,  and  consigned  to  a  cell  in 
which  was  scarcely  admitted  a  ray  of  light.  He  was  not 
allowed  books,  conversation,  or  any  visits  from  his  nearest 
relations  or  friends,  but  was  compelled  to  sit  motionless  and 
silent,  and  was  sometimes  detained  in  this  deplorable  condition 
for  years,  without  being  allowed  any  trial.  When  brought,  at 
last,  before  the  tribunal,  he  was  not  suffered  to  know  who 


ESTABLISHED    IX    SPAIN.  185 

accused  him,  or  of  what  he  was  accused;  but  was  obliged  to 
answer,  on  oath,  whatever  questions  the  inquisitor  should  put 
to  him,  and  was  usually  compelled,  in  this  way,  to  go  over  the 
history  of  his  whole  life ;  the  great  point  aimed  at  in  the  exa- 
mination, being  to  make  him  accuse  himself.  If  nothing 
heretical  could  be  discovered  by  this  process,  he  was  next 
taken  to  a  room  fitted  up  for  the  purpose  of  torture.  And 
three  kinds  of  torment  were  there  employed  to  force  a  confes- 
sion.  The  place  in  which  it  was  administered,  was  a  deep 
subterranean  grotto,  so  deep  that  the  horriblo  cries  of  the  un- 
happy wretch  coiild  not  be  heard.  It  was  illuminated  only  by 
two  torches  which  cast  a  feeble  light,  just  sufficient  to  enable 
the  culprit  to  discern  the  instruments  of  torture,  with  as  many 
executioners  as  they  needed  to  apply  them.  The  executioners 
themselves  were  clothed  in  black,  the  head  and  the  face  being 
quite  covered  with  a  hood,  which  had  holes  in  it  for  the  eyes, 
the  nose,  and  the  mouth ;  so  that  a  shapeless  figure  of  black 
was  all  that  could  be  seen.  The  inquisitors  were  always 
present,  exhorting  the  poor  wretch  to  confess,  and  if  he  still 
denied  his  heresy,  the  work  of  cruelty  began. 

The  first  kind  of  torment  was  called  the  torture  of  the  cord. 
The  accused  person  had  his  arms  tied  behind  him,  and  was 
raised  by  a  pulley  to  the  ceiling,  kept  suspended  there  for 
some  time,  and  then  suddenly  let  down  half  way  to  the  floor, 
with  a  shock  which  dislocated  the  joints,  and  forced  him  to 
shriek  aloud  with  agony.  This  torture  was  endured  for  an 
hour  or  more,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  inquisitors,  if 
the  strength  of  the  sufferer  was  able  to  bear  it. 

If  no  sufficient  confession  was  produced  by  this,  the  torture 
of  water  was  employed.  The  mode  of  administration  was  to 
pour  water  through  a  funnel  into  his  throat,  and  then  lay  him 
on  a  hollow  bench,  constructed  so  as  4o  close  and  press  the 
body  as  much  as  they  thought  proper.  Across  this  bench 
was  a  small  piece  of  timber,  laid  so  as  to  suspend  him  by  the 

R  2 


186  THE  iNQuisiTio:^" 

spine  of  the  back,  which  dislocated  it  with  the  most  incredible 
torment. 

The  third  kind  of  torture  was  called  the  torture  by  fire,  and 
was  the  most  dreadful  of  all.  They  kindled  a  large  fire,  they 
next  rubbed  the  soles  of  the  culprit's  feet  with  lard,  or  other 
similar  substances.  They  then  laid  him  on  the  pavement 
with  his  feet  towards  the  fire,  and  burned  him  in  this  manner, 
until  he  confessed  all  that  they  desired  to  know.  These  two 
kinds  of  torture  lasted  also  an  hour,  and  sometimes  longer; 
and  after  it  was  over,  the  poor  wretch  was  taken  back  to  his 
cell,  to  suffer  the  excruciating  consequences,  until  his  firmness 
and  constancy  were  quite  destroyed. 

When  at  last  the  tribunal  had  decided  upon  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  their  prisoners,  the  sentence  was  pronounced. 
Those  who  were  discharged  as  innocent,  were  usually  dis- 
figured or  crippled  for  life ;  and  their  property  was  dissipated, 
as  well  by  the  fact  that  the  inquisitors  seized  upon  it  to  support 
the  expenses  of  the  owner  while  in  prison,  as  by  the  waste 
and  rapacity  of  others,  when  the  care  of  the  lawful  possessor 
was  withdrawn.  Some  were  admitted  to  confession  and  re- 
pentance, and  thus  escaped  death ;  but  were  not  only  con- 
demned to  walk  in  the  public  procession  on  the  great  day  of 
execution,  but  to  submit  to  scourging,  fines,  imprisonment,  or 
to  wear  a  peculiar  garment  called  the  sail  benifo.  Besides 
which,  they  were  declared  infamous,  and  their  children  and 
grand-children  with  them.  Those  who  were  condemned  to 
death  were  delivered  over  to  be  first  strangled,  and  afierwards 
burned,  or  otherwise  to  be  given  up  to  the  secular  judge,  in 
order  to  be  burned  alive,  according  to  the  degrees  of  their 
heretical  guilt  and  obstinacy.  And  wonderful  to  tell,  after  all 
this  dreadful  barbarity  had  been  exercised  upon  them,  the 
grand  inquisitor,  in  handing  them  over  to  the  secular  judge, 
recommended  them  to  mercy  in  a  set  form :  thus  rendering 
still  more  revolting,  the  awful  system,  which  engrafted  such 


ESTABLISHED    IN    SPAIN.  187 

horrible  and  atrocious  cruelty  upon  the  compassionate  religion 
of  the  Gospel.  The  day  of  execution  itself  was  invested 
with  all  the  solennn  magnificence  and  terror,  which  the  united 
powers  of  Church  and  State  could  confer.  The  sovereigns, 
the  nobility,  and  the  judges,  attended  in  pomp.  The  grand 
inquisitor  was  seated  on  the  highest  throne,  and  surround- 
ed by  all  the  clergy  and  the  officials  of  this  vast  institu- 
tion. And  the  previous  night  having  passed  with  psalmody 
and  chanting,  and  masses  being  said  at  day-break,  and  all  the 
bells  of  the  cathedral  being  sounded,  a  grand  procession  was 
formed  from  the  principal  Church;  and  when  the  king  and 
queen,  and  the  ladies  of  the  court,  and  all  the  other  dignita- 
ries, and  the  host  of  the  priests,  and  the  criminals  with  their 
attendant  officers,  were  in  their  places,  a  sermon  was  delivered 
in  praise  of  the  inquisition,  representing  it  as  the  great  instru- 
ment to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  Church;  after  which,  the 
sentences  were  read,  the  punishments  inflicted,  the  fires  were 
hghted,  and  the  miserable  victims  perished  in  the  flames. 
Thus  was  the  whole  atrocious  exhibition  covered  with  the 
mantle  of  religion,  and  even  its  public  and  established  title 
was  the  auto  da  fe,  that  is,  the  act  of  faith  ! 

Brethren!  although  these  statements  are  made  from  the 
most  unquestionable  authorities,  and  are  as  certain  as  any 
facts  recounted  in  history,  yet  our  minds  experience  some  dif- 
ficulty in  believing  that  such  enormities  could  ever  have  been 
perpetrated  under  the  sanction  and  by  the  instrumentality  of 
the  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  yea,  under  the  express  govern- 
ment and  through  the  zealous  labours  of  those  very  popes, 
who  called  themselves  the  vicars  of  Christ  Jesus.  But  such 
was  the  aspect  of  religious  persecution  for  ages.  And  al- 
though the  Reformation  struck  it  with  a  powerful  blow,  al- 
though the  indignation  of  Roman  Catholics  themselves  was 
roused  to  resistance,  so  that  the  cruel  system,  notwithstanding 
the  efforts  of  the  popes,  could  never  take  root  effectively,  ex- 


188  THE    R03IAN    CHURCH    ACCOUKTABLE 

cept  in  Spain  and  Portugal,  yet  it  remained  in  existence  until 
the  year  1808;  and  then  it  was  destroyed,  not  by  the  pope, 
nor  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  by  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte, against  whom  the  pope  fulminated  a  bull  of  excom- 
munication the  year  after,  for  daring  to  invade  St.  Peter's 
patrimony. 

The  estimate  of  Llorente,  who  had  been  himself  connected 
with  this  horrible  institution,  gives  us  the  most  authentic  ac- 
count of  the  number  of  sufferers  in  the  Inquisition  of  Spain 
alone,  from  the  time  of  its  establishment  in  A.  D.  1481,  to  its 
abolition  in  A.  D.  1808.  The  whole  amounted  to  341,021. 
Of  these,  31,912  were  burned;  17,659  who  had  either  es- 
caped, or  died  under  imprisonment,  were  burned  in  effigy ; 
and  291,456  were  subjected  to  severe  penance.  We  see, 
therefore,  that  the  reign  of  the  Inquisition,  in  its  last  and  most 
formal  shape,  continued  for  325  years.  And  as  the  whole 
number  of  its  victims  amounted  to  341,000,  we  behold  a 
frightful  average  of  more  than  a  thousand  per  annum,  in  the 
single  nation  of  Spain,  and  for  this  single  religious  crime, 
called  heresy;  that  is,  the  crime  of  believing  that  there  was 
any  error  in  the  religion  taught  by  the  authority  of  the  pope 
of  Rome.  Now  you  must  add  to  this,  a  reasonable  propor- 
tion for  the  Inquisitions  of  Portugal  and  of  Goa  ;  and  then 
add  the  victims  of  the  holy  wars  waged  by  the  pope  against 
the  heretics  from  the  early  part  of  the  13th  century;  and  then 
make  a  further  allowance  for  the  innumerable  condemnations 
which  must  have  taken  place,  under  the  horrible  injunctions 
of  the  council  of  Lateran,  by  which  something,  more  or  less, 
must  have  been  done,  in  every  diocese  and  by  every  bishop, 
although  not  enough  to  satisfy  the  exterminating  zeal  of  the 
sovereign  pontiff;  and  then  add  to  all  this,  the  widows  and 
the  orphans,  the  infamy  and  the  distress,  which  even  extended, 
through  two  generations,  to  the  children  and  grandchildren  of 
the  unhappy  sufferers, — and  the  aggregate,  brethren,  will  be 


FOR    THE    INQUISITION.  189 

enough  to  make  one  stand  aghast  at  such  an  enormous  mass 
of  complicated  misery  and  torment, — all  inflicted  by  the  highest 
judgment  of  that  Church  which  calls  herself  infallible,  and 
all  in  the  abused  name  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind. 

But  now  arises  the  important  question,  what  has  all  this 
cruelty  to  do  with  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome? 
Do  not  the  Roman  Catholics  themselves  regard  it  just  as  we 
do?  Do  they  not  strongly  condemn  the  conduct  of  their 
popes,  and  distinctly  declare,  that  all  these  horrible  abuses 
grew  out  of  the  darkness  and  superstition  of  the  middle  ages, 
and  formed  no  part  of  their  Church's  system?  And  why, 
therefore,  should  there  be  a  recurrence  to  the  past,  for  what  is 
acknowledged  upon  all  hands  to  have  been  an  abomination, 
and  which  ought,  if  only  for  the  sake  of  Christian  charity, 
to  be  consigned  to  utter  oblivion  ? 

Such  is  the  appeal,  brethren,  often  heard  in  our  liberal 
days,  upon  this  serious  subject.  And  to  much  of  it,  I  gladly 
subscribe.  I  rejoice  to  do  this  justice  to  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  France,  Germany,  Switzerland,  Ireland,  England,  the  Ca- 
nadian provinces,  and  especially  the  United  States,  that  I  am 
fully  persuaded  of  their  accordance  with  ourselves  in  utter 
and  absolute  detestation  of  the  principle  of  religious  persecu- 
tion, as  manifested  in  the  crusades  against  the  heretics,  and 
especially  in  the  atrocious  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition.  But 
this  does  not  settle  the  question.  I  wish  from  my  heart  that 
it  could.  Unhappily,  however,  it  will  be  seen,  by  a  brief  ex- 
amination, that  the  creed  of  their  Church,  as  they  all  ac- 
knowledge it,  MAKES  THE  POPE  THE  SUPREME  JUDGE,  whether 

with  or  without  a  general  council.  And  by  that  creed,  either 
the  determination  of  the  point  must  be  clearly  against  them, 
or  the  claims  of  their  infallibility  must  be  cast  away  forever. 
Let  us,  however,  examine  the  question  in  both  ways:  first,  as 
it  would  stand  on  the  simple  prerogative  of  the  pope,  and  se- 
condly, as  it  would  stand  on  the  doctrine  of  the  councils. 


190 


THE    ROMAN    CHURCH 


With  respect  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  pope,  every  Roman 
CathoHc  who  understands  his  own  system,  acknowledges  the 
sovereign  pontiff  to  be  the  head  of  the  Universal  Church,  the 
vicar  of  Christ,  and  the  judge  in  the  last  resort  of  all  ecclesias- 
tical questions.  Who  then,  shall  pronounce  him  in  error? 
Who,  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  shall  undertake  to  correct  the 
repeated  decisions,  public  acts,  and  most  zealous  labours  of 
the  whole  train  of  pontiffs,  from  the  time  of  Gregory  VII. 
in  the  beginning  of  the  11th,  down  to  Pius  VII.  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  19th  century,  a  period  of  full  700  years,  in 
the  whole  of  which  the  principle  of  religious  persecution  was 
avowed  as  a  duty  of  conscience,  a  necessary  act  of  Christian 
faith,  and  a  prominent  w^ork  of  priests  and  princes  throughout 
all  Europe,  by  pope  after  pope,  without  one  solitary  exception? 
We  say  then,  that  granting  the  change  of  sentiment  among 
Roman  Catholics  themselves,  in  all  those  countries  which  are 
under  the  influence  of  the  Reformation  ;  yet  their  system  does 
not  allow  the  people,  nor  the  body  of  the  priesthood,  to  think 
for  themselves,  in  this  or  any  other  point,  lohere  their  Church 
is  concerned.  The  popes  are  the  judges.  The  vicar  of  Christ, 
as  they  esteem  him,  is  the  centre  of  unity  and  the  fountain  of 
authority.  And  until  the  judgment  of  the  pope  can  be  shown 
to  have  changed  with  respect  to  the  question,  the  system  of 
their  Church  must  be  taken  to  be  just  what  it  was,  notwith- 
standing the  acknow^ledged  improvement  in  the  opinions  and 
feelings  of  her  people. 

But  in  the  second  place,  let  us  try  the  point  upon  the  other 
ground,  namely,  on  the  authority  of  the  councils.  And  here, 
I  have  quoted  to  you,  brethren,  at  large,  the  conclusive  evi- 
dence of  the  great  council  of  Lateran,  where  not  only  is  the 
hunting  out  of  heretics  commanded  imperatively  of  every 
prince,  and  lord,  and  bishop,  and  archbishop,  in  order  that  they 
may  be  exterminated,  but  especially,  where  the  crusaders,  who 
have  taken  up  arms  against  the  heretics,  are  rewarded  with 


ACCOUNTABLE    FOR    THE    INQUISITION.  191 

the  I'emission  of  sins.  Nothing  can  be  more  manifest  than  the 
perfect  agreement  in  this  matter,  between  the  pope  and  this 
great  council ;  and  if  we  examine  the  acts  of  the  general  coun- 
oils  which  came  afterwards,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  the 
slightest  intimation  of  any  other  principle. 

Amongst  these,  however,  the  council  of  Florence  stands  dis- 
tinguished ;  because  the  English  and  American  Roman  Catho- 
lics in  our  day,  appeal  to  the  decree  of  this  council,  as  being 
the  only  true  declaration  of  doctrine  concerning  the  power  of 
the  pope.     It  is  in  the  following  words : 

"  We  also  define,  that  the  holy  apostolic  see,  and  the  Roman 
pontiff,  hold  the  primacy  through  the  whole  world,  and  that  the 
Roman  pontiff  is  the  successor  of  blessed  Peter,  the  prince  of 
the  apostles,  and  the  true  vicar  of  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the 
whole  Church,  and  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians ; 
and  that  to  him  in  blessed  Peier,  full  power  is  given  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  feed,  to  rule  and  to  govern  the  whole 
Church,  in  like  manner  as  the  same  is  contained  in  the  acts  of 
general  councils,  and  in  the  sacred  canons,''''  (Hard.  Con. 
Tom.  9,  p.  986.) 

Now  here,  brethren,  is  the  decree  passed  by  this  celebrated 
general  council  under  pope  Eugenius,  in  A.  D.  1439,  when 
two  hundred  and  twenty-four  years  had  elapsed  after  the 
great  council  of  Lateran,  during  the  whole  of  which  period  the 
holy  wars  and  the  pope's  inquisitors  had  been  carrying  on  the 
work  of  exterminating  heretics  in  the  face  of  all  Europe,  with 
universal  consent  and  approbation.  And  what  do  this  council 
enact  upon  the  subject?  Do  they  say  one  word  to  restrain 
the  pope's  prerogative?  Do  they  insinuate  that  he  had  taken 
too  much  upon  him?  Do  they  question  the  correctness  of  his 
doctrine,  or  deny  that  the  duty  of  exterminating  heretics  with 
fire  and  sword  had  been  truly  set  forth  as  a  part  of  the  Christian 
faith?  So  far  from  it,  that  the  pope  is  declared  to  have  full 
power,  not  only   to  feed,  but  to  rule  and  govern  the  whole 


192  THE    ROMAN    CHURCH 

Church.  He  is  said  to  be  the  vicar  of  Christ,  and  to  be  the 
father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians.  And  therefore  we  have 
another  general  council,  setting  its  seal,  in  large  terms,  to 
the  widest  extent  of  the  papal  supremacy,  with  the  pope's 
theory  and  practice  of  religious  persecution  for  more  than  two 
centuries  standing  before  them.  But  truly  it  seems  almost  a 
mockery  to  refer  us  to  this  council,  for  an  amelioration  of  the 
pope's  authority  in  the  point  of  persecution,  when  it  was  one 
of  their  acts  to  justify  the  emperor  Sigismund  in  violating  his 
own  safe  conduct,  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  John  Huss, 
the  Bohemian  reformer,  to  the  flames. 

Lastly,  let  us  ask  the  council  of  Trent,  whether  they  un- 
dertook  to  lay  down  a  different  doctrine;  and  we  shall  receive 
for  answer,  that  although  they  knew  the  indignant  censures  of 
the  reformers  on  this  point  perfectly  well,  and  also  knew" the 
strong  disapprobation  which  many  of  their  own  Church,  espe- 
cially in  France,  had  manifested  towards  the  Inquisition,  yet 
they  passed  the  whole  subject  by,  notwithstanding  the  very 
object  of  their  assembling  was  avowed  to  be  a  general  refor- 
mation of  the  Churchy  both  in  the  head  and  the  members. 
But  although  they  avoided  saying  any  thing  on  the  direct  point 
of  persecution,  they  recorded  a  longer  list  of  anathemas  or 
solemn  curses  against  the  heretics,  than  had  ever  been  exhibited 
before;  and  in  their  Catechism  they  took  care  to  have  it  uni- 
versally proclaimed,  that  heretics  are  under  the  jwisdiction 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  same  manner  as  deserters  are 
considered  to  belong  to  the  army  from  ichich  they  have  de- 
serted. Add  to  all  this  the  fact  already  mentioned,  that  the 
Inquisition  was  not  suppressed  until  1808,  and  then  not  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  but  by  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  and  the  evidence 
seems  to  my  mind,  conclusive;  although  the  reign  of  the  Eng- 
lish queen  Mary,  and  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes, 
and  the  awful  tragedy  of  St.  Bartholomew's  day,  would  of 
themselves  furnish  proof  more  than  enough  to  fill  a  volume. 


ACCOUNTABLE    FOR    THE    INaUISlTION.  193 

But  passing  by  these  events,  which  our  hmits  will  not  allow 
me  to  detail,  and  resting  merely  on  the  very  imperfect  sketch 
I  have  exhibited,  no  honest  Roman  Catholic  can  say  that  his 
Church  has  abandoned  the  principles  of  the  Council  of  Lateran, 
or  that  her  rulers  have  changed  one  article  of  that  cruel  and 
sanguinary  system  which,  for  the  last  seven  centuries,  has  en- 
deavoured to  protect  her  creed,  by  the  terrors  of  the  rack  and 
the  prison,  the  sword  and  the  flames. 

But,  blessed  be  God!  a  mighty  change  has  indeed  been 
wrought  by  the  glorious  Reformation,  although  popes  and 
councils,  the  creed  and  the  rulers  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  are 
still  what  they  were  in  the  dark  ages.  Her  people,  far  and 
wide,  have  begun  to  think  and  to  feel  rightly  upon  this  subject; 
her  champions  themselves  struggle  hard  to  cast  off  the  very 
imputation  of  her  persecuting  principles;  they  strive  to  bury  in 
utter  oblivion  the  records  of  the  past,  and  when  they  are 
obliged  to  recall  them,  they  exert  their  utmost  skill  to  make 
their  greatest  severities  look  like  a  benevolent  anxiety  for  the 
salvation  of  mankind.  The  truth  appears  to  be,  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  in  a  transition  state,  to  do  justice  to  which 
requires  careful  discrimination.  We  should  gladly  distinguish 
between  the  system  of  Rome,  and  the  people  who  so  often 
profess  it,  without  being  fully  aware  of  its  obnoxious  princi- 
ples. We  doubt  not  that  there  are  multitudes,  even  among 
her  priests,  who  are  strangers  to  many  important  portions  of 
their  own  history;  and  who,  in  simplicity  and  sincerity,  be- 
lieve and  teach  doctrines,  which,  if  they  had  lived  in  Italy,  or 
Spain,  only  one  hundred  years  ago,  would  probably  have 
brought  them  to  the  tortures  of  the  Inquisition.  Widely  dif- 
ferent from  the  condition  of  these,  however,  is  that  of  the  better 
informed,  who  know  the  truth,  but  have  too  little  moral  courage 
to  confess  it;  who  employ  their  talents  in  an  ingenious  attempt 
to  mystify  the  facts,  by  distorting  the  testimony  of  history;  and 
who  thus  hope  to  move  along  in  harmony  with  the  liberal 


194  CONCLUSION. 

maxims  of  the  age,  without  giving  up  their  professed  confidence 
in  their  Church's  infaUibility.  May  the  Spirit  of  Christ  give 
them  boldness  to  follow  out  their  convictions,  honestly  to  op- 
pose what  they  know  to  be  erroneous,  and  thus  bring  their 
Church  home  to  her  first  love,  according  to  the  pure  doctrines 
of  the  written  Word,  and  the  mild  and  gentle  temper  of  the 
Gospel. 

Meanwhile,  my  brethren,  it  is  vain  to  hope  that  the  complete 
regeneration  of  the  Church  of  Rome  can  ever  be  brought  about 
by  any  other  ordinary  means,  than  the  increased  spirit  of  in- 
quiry amongst  the  honest-hearted  of  her  priests,  and  the  intel- 
ligent portion  of  her  laity.  It  is  in  originating  and  fomenting 
this  spirit  of  inquiry,  that  the  Reformation  has  already  done 
them  so  great  a  service;  and  we  humbly  trust  that  the  pro- 
gress of  light  and  knowledge  will  advance  amongst  them  with 
accelerated  speed,  until  the  time  shall  come  for  another  coun- 
cil, far  more  general  than  that  of  Trent,  whose  decrees  shall 
openly  rebuke  the  cruel  despotism  of  the  dark  ages,  and  re-esta- 
blish the  mild  government  of  the  primitive  Church  once  more : — 
a  council  which  should  take  the  precept  of  St.  Paul  for  their 
motto:  Bless  and  cvrse  not;  which  should  grant  to  others 
the  toleration  which  they  claim  for  themselves,  and  leave  to 
Him  who  is  the  only  unerring  judge,  the  awful  work  of  con- 
demnation. 

Having  now  finished  the  first  part  of  our  series,  embracing 
the  preliminary  subjects  of  the  rule  of  faith,  the  papal  supre- 
macy, and  the  intolerance,  anathemas,  and  cruel  persecution 
connected  therewith,  I  design,  by  the  favour  of  Providence,  to 
commence  the  next  series  with  the  topic  of  celibacy,  which, 
in  her  priesthood,  and  her  hosts  of  monks  and  nuns,  forms  so 
important  a  peculiarity  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  And  in  con- 
clusion, my  beloved  brethren,  let  me  beseech  you  to  unite  with 
me  in  practising  that  precept  of  our  divine  Master,  which  saith, 
"  Bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despite- 


CONCLUSION.  195 

fully  use  you  and  persecute  you."  If  the  Church  of  Rome, 
in  her  Council  of  Trent,  and  her  creed  of  pope  Pius  IV., 
pours  her  anathemas  upon  us,  let  us  pray  for  a  blessing  upon 
her  in  return.  If  her  rulers  had  the  power,  we  have  every 
reason  to  believe  that  they  would  indeed  despitefully  use  us 
and  persecute  us,  and  think,  as  their  predecessors  did  in  the 
destruction  of  our  forefathers,  that  they  were  doing  God  ser- 
vice. But  be  it  our  place  to  pray  the  Father  of  mercies  to  heal 
their  blindness,  to  reform  their  errors,  and  to  turn  their  hearts. 
And  while  we  praise  him  with  adoring  gratitude  for  the  pre- 
cious jewel  of  our  own  Christian  liberty,  let  us  do  our  utmost 
to  extend  the  privilege  to  every  other  portion  of  the  Universal 
Church,  earnestly  beseeching  the  omnipotent  Redeemer  to 
hasten  the  time,  when  all  shall  worship  the  only  true  God  in 
the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  and  every  man  shall  sit  under  his 
own  vine  and  his  own  fig-tree,  with  none  to  make  him 
afraid. 


LECTURE  X. 

1  Tim.  iii.  4,  5,  6,  together  with  12th  verse. — ■'  It  behoveth,  therefore, 
a  bishop  to  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  sober,  prudent, 
of  good  behaviour,  chaste,  given  to  hospitality,  a  teacher,  not  given 
to  wine,  no  striker,  but  modest,  not  litigious,  not  covetous,  but  one 
that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection 
with  all  chastity.  But  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own 
house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  Church  of  God.  Let  deacons 
be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,  who  rule  well  their  children,  and  their 
own  houses."     (  Doway  Version.) 

These  words,  brethren,  which  I  have  set  down  precisely  as 
they  stand  in  the  Roman  Catholic  version  of  the  Scriptures, 
commonly  called  the  Doway  Bible,  are  invested  with  peculiar 
interest,  on  account  of  the  extraordinary  fact,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  set  up  a  doctrine  directly  contrary.  For,  as  you 
must  be  aware,  she  does  not  suffer  her  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons,  to  have  wives  or  children  at  all;  so  that  on  this  point, 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  word  of  that  Church  stand  in  the 
most  manifest  opposition.  "  Let  the  bishop  be  the  husband  of 
one  wife,"  saith  the  Scripture.  Nay,  saith  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  bishop  shall  not  marry.  "  Let  the  bishop  rule  his 
own  house  well,"  saith  the  Scripture,  "having  his  children  in 
subjection."  Nay,  saith  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  shall  have 
no  children.  "If  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house," 
saith  the  Scripture,  "how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  Church  of 
God?"  An  idle  argument,  saith  the  Church  of  Rome,  for  the 


JEROME    ON    CELIBACY.  197 

government  of  a  man's  own  house  and  the  care  of  the  Church 
of  God,  should  not  he  united  in  the  same  hands.  "  Let  the 
deacons  be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,"  continues  the  Word  of 
God,  "  who  rule  well  their  children  and  their  own  houses." 
By  no  means,  replies  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  deacons  must 
he  like  the  bishops,  having  no  wives,  no  children,  no  houses 
to  rule.  You  perceive,  therefore,  brethren,  that  the  denial 
of  the  rule  of  Scripture  could  not  be  more  positive — the  con- 
tradiction to  it  could  not  be  more  glaring:  so  that  the  mind, 
accustomed  to  the  simple  authority  of  the  Bible,  is  amazed 
at  the  boldness  of  this  flagrant  opposition,  and  wonders  how 
it  can  admit  of  palliation  or  excuse. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  the  argument  by  which  this  strange 
and  most  unscriptural  regulation  is  maintained,  and  connect 
with  it  the  kindred  topics  of  monastic  life  and  sanctity,  as  pro- 
fessed in  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  principle  of  voluntary 
mortification  is  the  common  basis  of  this  part  of  their  system, 
and  it  assumes  the  utmost  importance  when  it  is  considered  as 
resulting  in  the  worship  of  the  saints,  and  the  doctrine  of 
works  of  supererogation. 

The  argument  in  favour  of  celibacy  has  been  set  forth  by 
St.  Jerome  with  more  zeal  than  any  other  of  the  ancient  fa- 
thers, and  nothing  has  been  added  since  his  day  to  the  logic  of 
the  matter,  although  a  great  deal  has  been  added  to  its  vows 
and  compulsory  restrictions.  I  shall  state  his  views,  there- 
fore, in  order  to  yield  to  the  other  side  all  the  weight  which 
belongs  to  his  distinguished  name,  and  to  the  comparatively 
early  period  at  which  he  flourished,  viz:  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth,  and  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century. 

His  first  argument  is  derived  from  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  in  which  the  apostle  plainly  gives  the  preference 
to  celibacy  over  marriage ;  and  in  estimating  its  comparative 
excellence,  Jerome  considers  marriage  as  silver,  and  celibacy 
as  gold.  (Jer.  adv.  Jovin.  op.  om.  Tom.  2,  p.  16,  17.) 

s  2 


198  JEROME 

2d.  He  next  argues,  that  on  the  authority  of  the  same  apos- 
tle, matrimony  prevents,  by  its  unavoidable  cares,  the  entire 
devotion  of  the  soul  to  the  service  of  God.  (lb.  21.) 

3cl.  He  adduces  the  examples  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  John 
the  Baptist,  John,  the  beloved  disciple,  and  Christ  himself,  as 
being  all  in  favour  of  a  single  life;  and  urges  that  this  must 
needs  be  the  superior  state,  because,  in  heaven,  they  neither 
marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage. 

4th.  He  insists  on  one  passage  in  the  epistle  of  St.  Jude, 
and  another  in  the  Book  of  Revelations,  strongly  inferring  the 
superiority  of  celibacy,  (lb.  34.) 

5th.  He  derives  an  argument  of  expediency  from  the  high 
respect  in  which  celibacy  was  held  by  the  heathen.  (lb.  35.) 

6th.  And  lastly,  he  cites  from  Theophrastus,  a  long  and 
amusing  list  of  the  risks,  the  disappointments,  the  troubles, 
and  the  inevitable  trials  of  the  marriage  state. 

In  answer  to  all  this  it  is  sufficient  for  us  to  say,  that  the 
controversy  is  not  about  the  comparative  merits  or  privileges 
of  the  two  states  of  life.  Doubtless,  each  has  its  advan- 
tages. The  question,  however,  turns  upon  the  rule  laid  down 
for  the  ministry  by  the  Word  of  God,  and  upon  the  right  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  to  destroy  that  rule,  by  confining  the 
priesthood  to  those  who  abjure  matrimony;  thus  opposing  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  putting  a  yoke  upon  the 
clergy,  which  the  almighty  Lawgiver  had  decreed  they  should 
not  bear. 

We  have  already  shown  the  total  contrariety  of  this  yoke, 
to  the  positive  directions  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy.  Those  di- 
rections he  gives,  as  the  commandments  of  Christ  himself; 
whereas,  in  the  other  passages,  he  expressly  declares  that  he 
does  not  speak  in  his  usual  strain  of  authority,  because  he  had 
received  no  commandment  upon  the  subject  of  celibacy,  and 
therefore  that  what  he  was  about  to  say  was  only  his  own  pri- 
vate judgment.     Besides  which,  he  evidently  intends  his  ad- 


ON    CELIBACY.  199 

vice,  not  so  much  for  a  permanent^  as  for  a  temporary  pur- 
pose, because  he  recommends  it  as  being  ^^ good  for  the  pre- 
sent distress,''^  that  those  who  were  unmarried  should  remain 
so.  The  meaning  of  this  language  is  well  understood  on  all 
sides,  since  it  was  a  time  of  grievous  persecution,  when  Chris- 
tians did  not  know  at  what  moment  they  might  be  called  to 
abandon  home,  property,  nay,  life  itself,  in  order  that  they 
should  be  faithful  to  the  Gospel.  And  in  addition  to  this,  it 
should  be  considered  conclusive,  that  when  St.  Paul  recom- 
mends celibacy  in  preference  to  matrimony,  he  is  not  refer- 
ring to  the  clergy  at  all,  but  speaks  generally  about  what 
seemed  to  him  expedient,  at  that  time,  for  all  Christians, 
without  the  slightest  allusion  to  bishops,  priests,  or  deacons. 
Whereas,  when  he  writes  by  inspiration  to  Timothy  upon  the 
very  subject  of  the  ministry,  he  specifies  bishops  and  deacons; 
and  plainly  lays  down  the  general  rule  for  them,  that  they 
should  be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling  their  own  children 
and  households  well.  In  the  application  of  Jerome's  argu- 
ment, therefore,  to  the  clergy,  the  Church  of  Rome  has  com- 
mitted three  fatal  mistakes.  First,  they  strain  St.  Paul's  ad- 
vice, intended  for  the  time  of  persecution,  into  a  standing  law. 
Next,  they  apply  to  a  particular  order  what  the  apostle 
meant  for  all.  And  lastly,  they  deprive  that  order  of  the  very 
rule  which  the  apostle  laid  down  for  them. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  that  in  obedience  to  this  apos- 
tolic authority,  the  primitive  Church  for  many  centuries  left 
the  ministry  their  Scriptural  liberty  in  the  matter;  so  that  the 
restriction  established  subsequently  by  the  influence  of  Rome, 
was  an  innovation,  not  only  upon  the  Word  of  God,  but  also 
upon  the  practice  of  Christian  antiquity.  And  this  we  shall 
demonstrate  by  the  acts  of  Councils,  and  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers,  including  Jerome  himself.  Of  course,  brethren,  you 
understand,  that  we  do  not  refer  to  the  evidence  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  either  for  the  purpose  of  weakening  or  super- 


200  TERTULLIAN    ON    CELIBACY. 

seding,  in  any  respect,  the  supreme  and  only  infallible  law  of 
Scripture;  but  we  do  it  on  the  "principle  explained  in  a  former 
lecture,  that  the  sense  of  antiquity  is  the  best  rule  in  the  con- 
struction of  Scripture ;  and  in  all  questions  belonging  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  controversy,  we  do  it  with  the  greater  care, 
for  the  sake  of  those  whose  errors  we  are  discussing,  because 
tradition  is,  in  their  judgment,  equally  binding  with  the  writ- 
ten  Word  of  God. 

To  begin,  then,  with  Tertullian,  whose  testimony  comes 
within  one  hundred  years  of  the  apostle  John, — we  find  him  ex- 
pressly giving  his  interpretation  of  St.  Paul's  language  in  these 
words :  "The  apostle,"  saith  he,  "although  he  prefers  the  vir- 
tue of  continence,  yet  permits  marriage  to  be  contracted  and 
used;  and  argues  in  favour  of  retaining  rather  than  of  sepa- 
rating from  a  wife.  And  it  is  plain,  that  while  Moses  allows 
divorces,  Christ  forbids  them."  (Ter.  adv.  Mar.  lib.  v.  p. 
469.) 

Again  he  saith:  "It  was  lawful  for  the  apostles  to  marry, 
and  to  lead  their  wives  about  with  them.  And  it  was  lawful 
for  them  to  live  or  be  supported  by  the  Gospel.  But  he  who 
did  not  use  this  right,  provokes  us  to  imitate  his  example  on 
the  ground,  that  the  license  furnishes  an  opportunity  to  show 
the  trial  of  our  abstinence."  (lb.  de  Exhort.  Cast.  p.  522.) 

Again,  saith  Tertullian,  "Christ  fully  and  precisely  declares 
that  those  who  enter  into  the  episcopal  office  should  be  the 
husbands  of  one  wife. — And  we  shall  err  greatly  if  we  think 
that  what  is  not  lawful  for  the  priests,  is  lawful  for  the  people." 
(lb.  522,  A.) 

And  again :  "  We  never  read  of  marriage  being  forbidden," 
saith  he,  "for  it  is  good.  But  we  learn  from  the  apostle  what 
is  better  than  good,  pei'miiting  to  marry,  but  preferring  to 
abstain  ;  the  first  on  account  of  temptation,  the  second  on  ac- 
count of  the  affliction  of  the  times.'''' 

Let  us  next  listen  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  on  the  subject 


CLEMENT    OF    ALEXAIVDRIA.  201 

of  celibacy.  "The  apostle  saith,  it  is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh 
nor  to  drink  wine,  if  any  one  eateth  with  offence.  And  again, 
it  is  good  to  remain  unmarried,  even  as  I.  But  nevertheless," 
continues  Clement,  "he  who  uses  these  things,  giving  God 
thanks,  and  he  who  uses  them  not,  giving  God  thanks,  do 
both  live  rightly,  if  governed  by  moderation  and  temperance." 
(Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  lib.  iii.  p.  462.) 

Again,  saith  this  eminent  father,  "  The  apostle  plainly  allows 
every  one  to  be  the  husband  of  one  wife,  whether  he  be  a 
priest,  or  a  deacon,  or  a  layman,  so  that  he  use  marriage 
without  reprehension."     (lb.  464.) 

Again,  opposing  the  error  of  the  Gnostic  heretics,  Clement 
saith,  "Do  these  men  not  hesitate  to  reprove  even  the  apos- 
tles? For  Peter  and  Philip  had  sens,  and  Philip  (the  deacon) 
gave  his  daughter  in  marriage.  And  Paul  certainly  does  not 
blush  to  call  her  his  wife  in  a  certain  epistle,  whom,  neverthe- 
less, he  did  not  lead  about,  because  she  could  not  aid  him  in 
the  work  of  his  ministry.  Therefore,  he  saith  in  this  epistle, 
Have  not  we  power  to  lead  about  a  wife  who  is  a  sister,  like 
the  rest  of  the  apostles'?  But  these,  indeed,  as  was  suitable  to 
their  ministry,  did  not  lead  about  their  partners  so  much  in  the 
capacity  of  wives,  as  sisters;  for  their  wives  exercised  a  useful 
ministry  themselves  among  the  women  that  remained  at  home, 
so  that  in  the  most  private  apartments  of  the  females,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord  was  brought  without  censure  or  suspicion." 
(lb.  448.) 

Again:  "There  are  certain  persons,"  saith  Clement,  (ib. 
446)  "who  openly  say,  that  matrimony  is  sinful;"  (fornica- 
tion) "and  glorify  themselves  by  pretending  that  they  imitate 
our  Lord,  who  neither  was  married,  nor  possessed  any  earthly 
goods,  boasting  that  they  understand  the  Gospel  better  than 
others.  But  they  are  ignorant  of  the  reason  why  the  Lord  did 
not  marry.  First,  then,  let  them  remember,  that  he  has  his 
own  spouse,  which  is  the  Church.     Next,  that  he  was  not  a 


202 


CELIBACY    NOT    ESTABLISHED 


comman  man,  who  needed  a  helpmate  according  to  the  flesh. 
Neither  was  it  necessary  for  him  to  marry,  who  can  create, 
and  who  is  eternal,  being  born  the  only  Son  of  God." 

And  once  more:  Clement  tells  an  interesting  anecdote  of  St. 

o 

Peter,  which  is  worthy  of  commemoration.  "They  relate," 
saith  he,  "that  the  blessed  Peter,  when  he  saw  his  wife  led  to 
death,  rejoiced  that  she  was  called,  and  was  about  to  return  to 
her  home;  and  when  he  had  exhorted  and  comforted  her,  he 
finally  addressed  her  by  name,  and  said,  O  thou!  remember 
the  Lord.  Such,"  observes  Clement,  "  was  the  marriage  of 
these  saints,  and  their  perfect  affection."     (lb.  756.) 

Now,  in  these  extracts,  brethren,  you  plainly  perceive,  that 
the  disposition  to  depreciate  marriage,  and  to  make  celibacy  the 
law  of  the  clergy  at  least,  began,  like  every  other  corruption 
of  primitive  Christianity,  to  show  itself  very  early;  and  at 
length  it  gained  the  victory,  and  maintains  it  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  to  this  day.  But  I  shall  next  show  you,  from  the  works 
of  Jerome  himself,  that  it  had  not  in  his  time  become  the 
established  law,  even  in  Rome:  and  you  will  remember,  that 
he  died,  A.  D.  422,  so  that  he  belongs  to  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth  and  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century. 

Thus,  for  example,  in  his  epistle  to  Nepotian  on  the  life  of 
the  clergy,  he  tells  him,  "that  the  preacher  of  continence 
ought  not  to  seek  marriage.  For  since  it  is  he,"  saith  Jerome, 
"who  reads  the  apostle,  saying:  'It  remains  that  those  that 
have  wives  should  be  as  those  that  have  none,'  why  should  he 
prevail  upon  a  maiden  to  marry  him?"  This  language,  breth- 
ren, is  only  consistent  with  the  fact,  that  a  clergyman  in  Je- 
rome's days  might  enter  into  matrimony  if  he  pleased;  for  no 
such  exhortation  would  be  needed  after  a  positive  law  of  the 
Church  had  taken  the  liberty  away. 

In  his  first  book  against  Jovinian,  however,  he  speaks  still 
more  plainly.  "If  Samuel,  nourished  in  the  tabernacle,  took 
a  wife,"  saith  Jerome,  "what  does  that  prove  against  celibacy? 


IN    THE    TIME    OF    JEROME.  203 

As  if  there  were  not,  in  our  own  day  also,  many  priests  who 
are  in  the  married  state,  and  the  apostle  himself  describes  a 
bishop  as  the  husband  of  one  wife,  having  his  children  in  sub- 
jection with  all  gravity."  (Tom.  II.  Op.  om.  Hieron.  p.  25,  D.) 

Again,  Jerome  expressly  saith,  "I  do  not  deny  that  married 
men  are  chosen  for  bishops,  because  there  are  not  as  many 
single  as  are  necessary  for  the  priesthood."  "  But  how  hap- 
pens it,  you  will  say,  that  frequently  in  the  sacerdotal  order, 
the  single  man  is  passed  by,  and  the  married  man  is  elected? 
Because  he  may  be  wanting  in  the  other  qualities  which  the 
sacred  office  requires."     (lb.  p.  30,  E.) 

Nothing  can  be  plainer,  brethren,  than  these  passages,  to 
prove  that  Jerome,  with  all  his  zeal  for  celibacy  and  antipathy 
to  marriage,  was  still  surrounded  by  married  clergy;  and  that 
as  yet  the  Word  of  God  had  not  been  overborne,  in  this 
respect,  by  the  wisdom  of  men. 

To  show  still  more  clearly,  however,  how  far  Jerome's  doc- 
trine was,  from  being  the  established  opinion  of  his  day,  I  shall 
quote  a  passage  from  his  epistle  to  Pammachius,  where  he 
thanks  his  friend  for  having  bought  up  the  books  which  he 
wrote  in  depreciation  of  matrimony,  and  regrets  that  it  was  too 
late.  "I  am  well  aware,"  saith  he,  "of  what  you  have  pru- 
dently and  affectionately  done,  in  withdrawing  from  circula- 
tion the  copies  of  my  little  work  against  Jovinian.  But  your 
diligence  has  profited  me  nothing,  for  I  am  informed  that  the 
book  has  been  in  circulation  at  Rome,  and  as  you  have 
yourself  read:  *the  word  once  uttered,  cannot  return.'"  (lb. 
p.  81,  D.) 

Our  next  evidence  upon  the  subject  is  extracted  from  Gela- 
zius  of  Cyzicen's  history  of  the  great  council  of  Nice,  which 
met  in  A.  D.  325,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Arian  heresy,  at  the 
summons  of  Constantine,  the  Roman  emperor,  a  few  years 
before  Jerome  was  born,  and  consisted  of  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  bishops. 


204  COUNCIL    OP    NICE. 

"It  was  proposed,"  says  the  historian,  "in  this  council,  to 
declare,  that  it  was  not  fit  for  ecclesiastical  persons,  whether 
bishops,  or  presbyters,  or  deacons,  or  sub-deacons,  or  any 
others  of  the  sacred  order,  to  live  with  the  wives  whom  they 
had  married  when  they  were  laymen.  And,  as  they  were 
about  to  pass  this  rule  accordingly,  the  holy  Paphnutius, 
rising  in  the  full  council  of  the  bishops,  said  with  a  loud  voice; 
'  Forbear,  brethren,  to  lay  this  heavy  yoke  upon  ecclesiastics. 
For  marriage  is  honourable  among  all,  (saith  the  apostle,)  and 
the  bed  undefiled.  Do  not,  therefore,  injure  the  Church,  by 
the  unreasonable  excess  of  so  severe  a  law,  for  all  cannot  bear 
that  mode  of  life  which  allows  nothing  to  the  human  affections. 
In  my  judgment,  none  (of  us)  will  be  saved  in  love,  if  (we  de- 
cree) that  husbands  shall  separate  themselves  from  their  wives. 
I  hold  that  marriage  deserves  to  be  esteemed  the  best  conti- 
nence, nor  can  we  separate  the  woman  whom  God  has  joined 
to  her  husband,  when  he  was  a  reader,  or  a  singer,  or  a  lay- 
man.' Thus,"  continues  the  historian,  "did  the  great  Paphnu- 
tius argue,  although  he  was  himself  an  unmarried  man,  and 
had  been  educated  in  a  monastery  from  his  childhood.  And 
accordingly,  being  persuaded  by  his  counsel,  the  whole  assem- 
bly of  the  bishops  held  their  peace,  and  left  it  to  the  free  will 
of  the  married  clergy  to  act  as  they  thought  proper."  (Mansi 
Concil.  Tom.  ii.  p.  759.) 

Another  very  direct  and  strong  proof  of  the  state  of  the 
matter  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century,  is  furnished  by 
the  Council  of  Gangris,  which  was,  indeed,  a  provincial  coun- 
cil, but  approved  by  pope  Leo  IV.  The  following  canons  will 
show  this  distinctly. 

"CANON    IV. 

"If  any  one  shall  contend  that  a  priest,  who  has  married  a 
wife,  is  therefore  not  fit  to  celebrate  the  sacred  rites,  and  offer 
the  holy  eucharist.  Jet  him  he  anathema.^^ 


COUNCILS    OF    NICE    AND    TRULLO.  205 

"canon  X. 

*'  If  any  one  of  those  who  have  professed  cehbacy  for  the 
Lord's  sake,  shall  insult  over  those  who  have  taken  wives,  let 
him  he  anathema.''^ 

Here  we  see,  at  once,  both  the  boastful  pride  of  the  advo- 
cates for  clerical  celibacy,  and  the  vigorous  determination  of 
the  council  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  married  clergy;  plainly 
showing  that  two  parties  were  already  formed  in  the  Church, 
of  whom  the  innovators  grew  stronger,  until  they  gained 
their  point.  But  not  without  many  struggles  and  much  oppo- 
sition was  this  done,  even  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  the 
great  Council  of  Trullo,  so  late  as  A.  D.  706,  recorded  this 
solemn  condemnation  of  the  new  doctrine,  in  their  thirteenth 
canon;  the  language  of  which  is  as  follows: 

"Forasmuch  as  we  are  informed,  that  the  Roman  Church 
has  put  forth  a  canon,  ordering  that  all  those  who  are  to  be 
promoted  to  the  office  of  deacon  or  priest,  shall  profess  that 
they  will  no  longer  live  together  with  their  wives:  we,  on  the 
contrary,  keeping  the  rule  of  apostolic  perfection  and  order, 
decree,  that  the  legitimate  marriages  of  all  persons  in  holy 
orders  shall  be  held  firm  and  established,  by  no  means  dissolv- 
ing their  union  with  their  wives,  nor  depriving  them  of  any 
matrimonial  privilege.  Wherefore,  if  any  one  be  found  worthy 
to  be  ordained  a  subdeacon,  or  a  deacon,  or  a  presbyter,  let 
him  by  no  means  be  prohibited  from  that  sacred  order  because 
he  cohabits  with  his  lawful  wife.  Nor  shall  he  be  asked  at 
the  time  of  his  ordination,  whether  he  intends  to  separate  from 
his  wife.  For  otherwise  we  should  do  injury  to  that  marriage, 
which  God  has  constituted,  and  blessed  by  his  presence.  The 
voice  of  the  gospel  exclaims,  Those  whom  God  hath  joined  to- 
gether, let  no  man  put  asunder.  The  apostle  teaches,  that 
marriage  is  honourable  and  the  bed  undefiled:  and  again  he 

saith,  '  Art  thou  tied  to  a  wife?   Seek  not  to  be  loosed.' If 

any  one,  therefore,  shall  dare,  against  the  apostolic  canons,  to 

T 


206  ORIGIN  OF  THE  DOCTRINE 

incite  those  who  are  in  holy  orders,  whether  subdeacons,  dea- 
cons, or  priests,  to  separate  from  their  wives  and  deprive  them 
of  their  society,  let  him  he  deposed.'^''  (Hard.  Con.  Tom.  III. 
p.  1666.) 

This  testimony,  brethren,  is  sufficiently  distinct,  so  far  as 
the  matrimonial  rights  of  the  presbyters  and  inferior  clergy  are 
concerned;  but  the  influence  of  the  new  doctrine  was  so  pow- 
erful at  this  time,  that  the  previous  canon  of  the  same  council 
requires  the  bishops  to  separate  from  their  wives,  expressly 
declaring,  however,  that  this  was  not  on  the  ground  of  any 
principle  of  divine  truth,  or  ecclesiastical  authority,  but  solely 
in  regard  to  the  opinions  of  the  people.  And  such  is  the  rule 
of  the  Greek  and  Russian  Churches  to  the  present  day,  their 
bishops  being  single  men,  but  all  the  rest  of  the  clergy  being 
free  to  marry.  But  you  will  naturally  inquire,  what  could 
have  induced  the  Church  to  bring  in  this  doctrine  of  celibacy, 
so  opposite  to  the  whole  strain  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and 
to  the  plain  language  of  the  New  Testament.  And  this,  bre- 
thren, we  shall  endeavour  to  explain,  on  the  surest  ground  of 
historical  fact,  and  ecclesiastical  policy. 

Long  before  the  time  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  there  were,  as 
you  all  know,  a  variety  of  heathen  philosophers  in  the  world, 
who  were  celebrated  for  their  supposed  superiority  over  the 
rest  of  mankind.  Of  these,  all  the  most  distinguished  sects 
contributed,  more  or  less,  to  the  triumph  of  the  gospel,  inas- 
much as  many  of  their  disciples  became  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  and  devoted  to  that  divine  truth,  their  learning 
and  their  zeal.  But,  as  might  be  naturally  expected,  a  large 
proportion  of  these  converts  were  disposed  to  modify  the  reli- 
gion which  they  embraced,  by  as  much  of  their  former  phi- 
losophy as  they  could  conveniently  combine  with  it ;  and  thus 
arose  the  enormous  variety  of  heresies  which  distracted  the 
primitive  Church,  and  which  might,  for  the  most  part,  be  traced 
to  the  prevailing  influence  of  some  philosophical  sect  or  party. 


OF    PRIESTLY    CELIBACY.  207 

Amongst  these  systems  of  ancient  philosophy,  however, 
none  were  more  remarkable  than  that  of  the  Gymnosophists, 
or  Brachmans  of  India.  Of  their  particular  doctrines,  indeed, 
we  know  much  less  than  we  do  of  the  philosophy  of  Greece, 
but  we  know  that  they  were  distinguished  by  their  constant 
warfare  upon  the  appetites  of  the  flesh,  seeking  by  continual 
meditation,  and  the  severest  austerities,  to  overcome  all  sen- 
suality, and  thereby,  as  they  conceived,'  unite  themselves  with 
the  Deity.  So  far  did  they  carry  this  notion,  that  they  some- 
times burned  themselves  alive,  in  order  to  be  purified  the 
sooner;  of  which  two  noted  instances  are  mentioned,  that  of 
Calanus  in  the  presence  of  Alexander  (he  great,  and  the  other 
of  Xarimarus  at  Athens,  before  Augustus  the  Roman  emperor. 
(Am.  Ency.     Art.  Gymnosophists.) 

You  will  at  once  be  reminded,  brethren,  by  this  brief  out- 
line, of  the  superstitions  of  the  Bramins,  who  form  the  priest- 
hood of  the  Hindoos  to  this  day,  and  who  trace  their  descent 
from  a  very  remote  antiquity,  being,  in  all  probability,  derived 
from  the  stock  we  have  just  described.  The  principle  of  reli- 
gion with  both  seems  to  have  been  the  same,  namely,  the  effort 
to  unite  the  soul  to  the  Deity  by  the  practice  of  the  most  rigor- 
ous abstinence,  and  painful  austerities.  Thus  among  the  Bra- 
mins, flesh  and  eggs  are  forbidden  food,  and  rules  of  purifica- 
tion, fasting,  penances,  and  ablutions  are  strictly  required,  as 
preservatives  from  sin.  There  are  four  stages  marked  out  for 
them,  in  the  third  of  which  they  become  Vana  Prasthas,  or 
inhabitants  of  the  desert.  They  then  retire  to  the  forest,  live 
on  roots,  green  herbs,  and  water,  and  practice  the  most  rigor- 
ous mortification.  "  Let  the  Vana  Prastha,^^  says  Menou,  in 
the  Institute,  "  slide  backwards  and  forwards  on  the  ground, 
or  stand  the  whole  day  on  tiptoe,  or  continue  rising  and  sitting 
down  alternately;  in  the  hot  season  let  him  sit  exposed  to 
five  fires,  in  the  rain  let  him  stand  uncovered,  in  the  cold  sea- 
son let  him  wear  wet  garments ;  then  having  stored  up  his 


208  ORIGIN    AND    PROGRESS 

holy  fires  in  his  mind,  let  him  live  without  external  fire,  with- 
out a  sheltq^r,  wholly  silent,  and  feeding  on  roots  and  fruit. 
When  he  shall  have  thus  become  void  of  fear  and  sorrow,  and 
shaken  off  his  body,  he  rises  to  the  divine  essence."  In  the 
fourth  state,  they  are  called  Sannyasi,  and  new  and  still  more 
severe  penances  are  performed ;  all  for  the  same  purpose  of  con- 
quering the  flesh,  and  becoming  exalted  to  a  participation  of 
the  divine  nature.  The  honours  formerly  paid  to  these  devo- 
tees were  almost  unbounded.  Kings  and  people  rendered  them 
the  highest  reverence,  and  the  severity  of  their  self-torment 
was  the  unfailing  measure  of  their  influence  and  their  fame. 

The  accounts  we  have  of  the  modern  Fakirs  are  sufficiently 
known,  to  furnish  the  details  of  this  last  stage  of  Hindoo  su- 
perstition. They  retire  from  the  world  and  give  themselves  up 
to  meditation,  practising,  meanwhile,  the  most  cruel  penances. 
Some  roll  themselves  constantly  in  the  dirt.  Others  hold  one 
arm  raised  in  a  fixed  position  so  long,  that  it  becomes  wither- 
ed, and  remains  immovable  for  life.  Others  keep  their  hands 
clasped,  until  the  nails  grow  into  the  flesh  and  come  through 
on  the  other  side.  They  make  a  vow  of  poverty,  live  at  the 
expense  of  the  community  wherever  they  appear,  and  are  vene- 
rated by  the  people  with  the  deepest  devotion. 

The  identity  of  the  country,  the  name  of  Brachman,  and  the 
perfect  similarity  of  the  principle,  warrant  the  belief,  that  the 
philosophy  of  the  ancient  Gymnosophists,  otherwise  called  the 
oriental  philosophy,  and  what  we  now  call  Hindooism,  were 
substantially  the  same  system.  But  however  this  may  be,  it 
seems  sufliciently  certain,  that  the  earliest  and  most  obstinate 
of  the  heresies  which  infested  the  primitive  Church,  under  the 
name  of  Gnosticism,  was  the  result  of  the  endeavour  to  en- 
gross the  oriental  philosophy  upon  the  pure  doctrines  of  the 
Word  of  God ;  and  that  to  this  we  may  trace,  not  only  the 
rule  of  clerical  celibacy,  but  the  rise  of  monks  and  nuns,  to- 
gether with  the  whole  train  of  self-tormenting  penances  which 


OP    PRIESTLY    CELIBACY.  209 

we  shall  have  occasion  to  present  to  you,  from  the  lives  of  the 
canonized  saints  in  the  Roman  Calendar. 

This  heresy  of  the  Gnostics  was  divided  into  several  sects, 
of  which  the  Valentinians  and  the  Marcionites  were  the  most 
numerous  and  influential.  It  was  a  common  doctrine  with 
them  all,  however,  that  matter  was  eternal,  and  was  essen- 
tially evil;  and  that  the  soul  could  only^  become  united  to 
Christ  by  combating  this  evil  during  its  abode  in  the  body,  and 
having  as  little  to  do  with  the  indulgence  of  every  appetite  as 
possible.  Hence  they  avoided  flesh,  wine,  and  marriage;  gave 
themselves  up  to  religious  contemplation,  and  practised  austeri- 
ties on  principle  ;  looking  down  with  the  utmost  contempt  on 
the  catholics  or  orthodox  Christians,  because  they  were  what 
they  called  carnal  and  ignorant  men,  and  valuing  them- 
selves as  the  only  possessors  of  spiritual  knowledge  and  illu- 
mination. 

Against  these,  the  early  fathers  were  constantly  engaged 
in  controversy.  Irenseus  composed  his  whole  work  for  the 
purpose  of  combating  their  errors,  which  were  by  no  means 
confined  to  their  austerities,  but  extended  to  the  subversion  of 
almost  every  other  principle  of  Christianity.  Tertullian  wrote 
largely  against  them ;  so  did  Clement  of  Alexandria;  and  in 
a  word,  we  meet  with  continual  reference  to  them,  in  all  the 
writers  of  the  Church,  until  the  fifth  century ;  after  which 
they  disappeared,  as  a  distinct  sect,  although  they  left  impres- 
sions on  the  Christian  system  which  perhaps  may  last  until 
the  end  of  the  world. 

There  was  yet  another  quarter,  from  which  a  strong  influ- 
ence in  favour  of  clerical  celibacy  operated  on  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  and  that  was  the  institution  of  the  vestal  virgins, 
which  were  held,  since  the  days  of  Numa  Pompilius,  in  such 
high  regard;  and  to  which  the  heathen,  in  their  disputations 
with  Christians,  were  apt  to  refer,  with  especial  pride  and  satis- 
faction.    It  was  also  one  of  the  Roman  laws,  that  the  heathen 

T  2 


210  THE    MONASTIC    SYSTEM. 

priests  should  only  be  allowed  to  marry  once;  a  rule  to  which 
TertuUian,  and  afier  him  Jerome,  never  failed  to  have  recourse, 
when  arguing  against  matrimony. 

Here  then,  brethren,  we  may  readily  perceive  the  origin 
of  the  pernicious  law  which  the  Church  of  Rome  adopted. 
Many  of  her  priesthood  having  been  themselves  disciples  of 
the  eastern  philosophy,  all  of  them  being  often  taunted  and 
provoked  to  a  kind  of  emulation  by  the  superior  austerities  of 
the  Gnostic  heretics,  and  being  abundantly  convinced,  through 
the  blind  admiration  of  the  multitude,  that  a  large  increase  of 
influence  was  likely  to  be  gained  in  favour  of  the  truth,  by  the 
adoption  of  every  thing  which  savoured  of  self-denial,  they 
would  be  induced,  from  motives  of  Christian  zeal  in  the  first 
place,  and  from  an  honest  belief  of  its  real  advantages  as  they 
went  on,  that  it  was  expedient  to  bind  this  yoke  upon  them- 
selves; and  once  introduced, — the  reverence  of  the  people 
once  manifested  in  favour  of  what  they  would  call  a  higher 
character  of  devotedness, — it  is  evident  that  it  would  go  on,. 
hand  in  hand,  with  every  other  branch  of  superstition,  until 
it  reached  an  excess,  which  doubtless  none  of  its  first  advo- 
cates could  have  anticipated. 

But  this  brings  us  to  the  chief  development  of  the  princi- 
ple in  the  monastic  system,  which  we  shall  find  establishing 
itself  in  the  Church  of  Rome  through  the  influence  of  the 
same  Jerome^  after  it  had  been  practised  for  a  considerable 
period  in  Egypt  and  Syria.  The  idea  of  leaving  the  world 
for  solitude,  giving  up  the  whole  life  to  religious  contemplation, 
and  mortifying  the  flesh  by  all  imaginable  penances  and  self- 
denial,  has  been  already  stated  as  familiar  to  the  Orientalists^ 
long  before  the  coming  of  our  blessed  Redeemer.  The  date 
of  its  formal  introduction  amongst  Christians,  however,  is  set 
down  to  the  year  305,  when  Anthony,  frequently  styled  the 
great,  collected  a  number  of  hermits  in  the  deserts  of  Upper 
Egypt,  where  they  built  their  huts  close  together,  and  per- 


THE    MONASTIC    SYSTEM.  211 

formed  their  devotions  in  common.  One  of  his  disciples, 
named  Pachomius,  formed  a  still  more  compact  society  upon 
the  island  of  Taberna,  in  the  Nile,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century,  where  they  were  brought  under  the  observance 
of  a  strict  rule,  and  were  governed  by  a  prior.  x\nd  so  rapidly 
did  this  new  institution  increase,  that  at  the  death  of  Pacho- 
mius, his  colony  of  monks  amounted  to  50,000  persons. 
Basil,  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Cesarea,  next  distinguished 
himself  by  founding  convents  for  females  on  a  similar  plan, 
to  which  he  prescribed  a  stricter  rule,  which  was  extensively 
observed  and  highly  reverenced.  But  the  making  a  public 
profession^  and  taking  irrevocable  voids  for  life,  was  not 
established,  until  the  time  of  St.  Benedict,  in  the  sixth  century, 
at  his  monastery  called  Monte  Casino,  near  Naples;  from 
which  period  the  character  of  the  monastic  institution  was 
more  powerfully  marked  than  before.  Its  influence  upon  the 
Church  in  discipline,  doctrine,  and  government,  was  indeed 
very  perceptible  so  early  as  the  fourth  century  ;  but  it  became 
almost  absolute  during  the  dark  ages,  and,  notwithstanding 
the  check  given  to  it  by  the  Reformation,  is  operating  far  and 
wide  upon  the  world  at  this  very  hour. 

A  few  extracts  from  Jerome,  who  was  himself  a  monk, 
with  the  liberty,  however,  that  characterized  monachism  in  his 
day,  may  be  acceptable,  as  showing  the  spirit  and  the  rise  of 
this  remarkable  institution. 

"  To  me,"  saith  Jerome,  "  the  city  is  a  prison,  and  the  de- 
sert is  a  paradise."  (Op.  Om.  Tom.  I.  p.  29.)  Then,  com- 
mending the  monastery  for  its  spiritual  discipline,  he  says, 
"  There  you  live  under  the  government  of  one  father,  in  the 
company  of  many ;  that  of  one  you  may  learn  humility,  of 
another,  patience.  This  brother  will  teach  you  silence,  that 
brother  will  teach  you  meekness;  you  cannot  do  as  you 
would,  you  eat  what  you  are  ordered,  you  wear  what  is  given 
to  you,  you  accomplish  the  allotted  task  of  your  labour,  you 


212  THE   MONASTIC    SYSTEM. 

are  subjected  to  what  you  like  not,  you  come  weary  to  your 
pallet,  you  sleep  as  if  in  haste,  and  before  your  sleep  is  fin- 
ished, you  are  compelled  to  arise.  You  say  the  appointed 
psalm  in  your  heart,  in  which  not  the  sweetness  of  the  voice 
but  the  affection  of  the  mind  is  required ;  you  serve  your 
brethren,  you  wash  the  feet  of  the  guests,  you  suffer  reproofs 
in  silence,  you  fear  the  president  of  the  monastery  as  the 
Lord,  you  love  him  as  a  father.  You  believe  whatever  he 
orders  will  be  useful  to  you,  nor  do  you  judge  the  opinion  of 
your  superiors,  since  it  is  your  office  to  obey  and  perform 
whatever  they  order  you.  Occupied  by  all  these,  you  will 
have  no  leisure  for  idle  thoughts;  and  while  you  pass  from 
this  to  that,  labour  follows  labour,  and  you  will  only  retain 
in  your  mind  what  you  are  obliged  to  do."  (lb.  p.  30.  F.) 
"  Go  therefore,  and  live  in  a  monastery,  that  you  may  be 
worthy  to  be  admitted  among  the  clergy."     (lb.  p.  31.  B.) 

In  this  description  of  the  duties  and  character  of  a  monk, 
there  is  no  vow  of  perpetual  celibacy,  poverty,  and  obedience 
to  the  end  of  life,  nor  any  obligation  laid  upon  the  individ- 
ual to  stay  in  the  monastery  longer  than  he  was  so  disposed. 
These  vows,  which,  when  once  taken,  could  never  be  recalled, 
were  the  great  characteristics  of  the  institution  at  a  later  day, 
and  probably  were  productive  of  the  worst  evils  which  grew 
out  of  the  system. 

In  another  letter  of  Jerome,  addressed  to  the  virgin  Prin- 
cipia,  and  giving  an  account  of  the  piety  of  Marcella,  a  noble 
widow  of  Rome,  who  was  the  first,  through  his  advice,  to 
profess  herself  a  follower  of  the  monastic  institution  in  that 
city,  he  states  as  follows:  "At  this  time,"  saith  he,  "none  of 
the  noble  ladies  of  Rome  knew  any  thing  of  the  monastic  life, 
nor  did  they  dare  to  assume  the  name,  because  it  was  then  a 
new  thing,  discreditable  and  vile  in  the  eyes  of  the  people. 
The  bishops  of  Alexandria,  Athanasius,  and  afterwards  Peter, 
obliged  to  fly  from  the  persecution  raised  against  them  by  the 


ST.    MACAKIUS.  213 

Arian  heretics,  came  to  Rome,  having  learned  the  history  of 
the  hlessed  Anthony  who  was  still  living,  and  that  of  the  mo- 
nasteries established  in  Egypt  by  Pachomius,  with  the  disci- 
pline of  the  widows  and  virgins.  Nor  did  they  blush  to 
acknowledge  what  they  had  known  to  be  acceptable  to  Christ. 
It  was  several  years  afterwards,  before  Sophronia  and  others 
imitated  the  example."  Here  then,  brethren,  we  have  the  rise 
of  this  whole  institution  clearly  referred  to  the  fourth  century, 
and  therefore,  in  Jerome's  own  time,  it  was  confessedly  a 
novelty. 

The  shape  which  piety  soon  began  to  assume  under  the 
influence  of  this  new  institution,  accommodated  itself  with  the 
utmost  readiness  to  the  principles  of  penance  and  austerity, 
which  the  oriental  philosophy  engrafted  on  the  Gospel.  And 
hence  we  find  the  distinguished  saints,  whom  the  Church  of 
Rome  lias  thought  fit  to  honour  by  a  place  in  her  calendar,  are 
described,  with  very  few  exceptions,  as  having  devoted  them- 
selves to  celibacy,  to  poverty,  and  to  a  life  of  the  most  cruel 
and  unceasing  mortification.  The  history  of  these  saints  which 
modern  Roman  Catholics  are  most  willing  to  acknowledge, 
may  be  found  in  the  Roman  Breviary,  and  the  work  of  the 
Rev.  Alban  Butler,  in  which  the  sagacious  author  has  omitted 
the  most  extravagant  parts  of  the  old  chronicles,  as  being 
rather  too  strong  for  the  taste  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
From  these  I  shall  extract  a  few  specimens,  which  will  clearly 
show  the  character  of  the  system. 

St.  Macarius  the  younger,  spent  upwards  of  60  years  in  the 
deserts  of  Upper  Egypt,  in  the  exercise  of  fervent  penance  and 
contemplation.  He  lived  some  time  under  St.  Anthony,  but 
aimed,  if  possible,  at  still  greater  perfection.  As  an  instance 
of  his  austerities,  it  is  related,  that  he  passed  the  whole  season 
of  Lent,  forty  days  and  nights,  standing  in  a  corner,  making 
baskets  of  palm-leaves,  without  eating  any  thing  except  a  few 
raw  cabbage-leaves  on  Sundays.      At  another  time  he  hap- 


214  ST.    SIMEON    STYLITES. 

pened  inadvertently  to  kill  a  gnat,  which  was  biting  him  in 
his  cell,  but  reflecting  that  he  had  thus  lost  the  opportunity  of 
suffering  that  mortification,  he  hastened  from  his  cell  to  the 
marshes  of  Scete,  which  abounded  with  a  sort  of  flies,  whose 
stings  are  insupportable  even  to  wild  boars.  There  he  con- 
tinued six  months  exposed  to  these  insects,  and  to  such  a  degree 
was  his  whole  body  disfigured  in  consequence,  by  sores  and 
swellings,  that  when  he  returned  he  was  only  to  be  known  by 
his  voice.     (Butler's  Lives,  Vol.  I.  55.) 

Another  of  these  saints  was  St.  Simeon  Stylites,  who  was 
a  subject  of  astonishment,  not  only  to  the  Roman  empire,  but 
to  many  barbarous  and  infidel  nations.  In  his  tender  youth 
he  was  taken  into  a  monastery,  where  he  made  it  his  practice 
to  eat  once  only  in  the  week,  and  that  on  Sundays.  The 
rough  rope  made  of  twisted  palm-leaves,  which  they  used  for 
drawing  water,  seemed  to  him  to  be  a  fit  instrument  of  pen- 
ance; and  therefore  he  tied  it  round  his  body  and  kept  it  there, 
until  it  had  eaten  into  his  flesh,  and  was  cut  out  with  the  great- 
est anguish.  After  his  recovery,  he  resolved  that  he  would 
keep  the  whole  of  Lent  without  either  eating  or  drinking,  and 
actually  did  so  for  the  following  forty  years.  He  remained  in 
a  hermitage  three  years,  then  built  himself  an  inclosure  of 
stones,  without  a  roof,  on  the  top  of  a  mountain,  fastening  his 
leg  to  the  rock  with  a  great  iron  chain.  But  being  too  much 
distracted  from  his  contemplation  by  the  crowds  of  people 
that  came  from  all  parts  to  receive  his  blessing,  he  erected  a 
pillar  of  nine  feet  high,  on  which  he  remained  four  years.  On 
a  second,  eighteen  feet  high,  he  lived  three  years.  On  a  third 
pillar,  thirty-three  feet  high,  he  continued  ten  years;  and  on  a 
fourth,  built  for  him  by  the  people^  of  sixty  feet  high,  he  spent 
the  last  twenty  years  of  his  life.  His  pillar  was  only  three  feet 
in  diameter  at  the  top,  so  that  he  could  not  lie  down  on  it, 
neither  would  he  allow  himself  a  seat.  Twice  a  day,  he  ex- 
horted the  people.     His  garments  were  the  skins  of  beasts. 


ST.  PAULA  AND  ST.  PAUL.  215 

and  he  wore  an  iron  collar  round  his  neck.  But  he  never 
suffered  any  woman  to  come  within  the  enclosure  where  his 
pillar  stood.  His  miracles  were  said  to  be  very  numerous, 
and  the  attraction  of  his  singular  mode  of  life  was  beyond 
example.     (lb.  65.) 

A  third  instance  is  that  of  St.  Jerome's  particular  friend 
Paula,  who,  after  the  death  of  her  husband,  resolved  to  devote 
herself  to  penance  and  devotion.  She  abstained  from  all  flesh, 
meat,  fish,  eggs,  honey,  and  wine;  used  oil  only  on  holy  days, 
lay  on  a  stone  floor  covered  with  sackcloth,  renounced  all 
visits  and  amusements,  put  aside  all  costly  garments,  and  gave 
all  she  had  to  the  poor.  Prayer,  pious  reading  and  fasting 
were  her  occupations,  and  finally  she  left  her  children  at  Rome, 
took  up  her  abode  at  Bethlehem,  built  several  monasteries, 
and  passed  the  rest  of  her  days  in  mortification.     (lb.  78.) 

Another  example  is  that  of  St.  Paul:  not  the  apostle,  indeed, 
whose  life  was  of  a  very  opposite  description,  but  St.  Paul,  the 
first  Christian  hermit.  This  man  fled  into  the  desert  from  the 
Decian  persecution  in  A.  D.  250,  and  chose  for  his  dwelling  a 
cave,  near  to  which  were  a  palm-tree  and  a  clear  spring.  The 
leaves  of  the  tree  furnished  him  with  clothing,  the  fruit  with 
food,  and  the  spring  supplied  him  with  water.  Thus  he  lived 
for  21  years,  and  from  that  time  till  his  death,  about  70  years 
after,  he  was  miraculously  fed  by  a  raven,  who  brought  him 
half  a  loaf  of  bread  every  day.  He  was  found  dead  by  St. 
Anthony,  another  celebrated  hermit,  after  he  had  paid  him  a 
visit  by  revelation;  and  although  dead,  the  body  was  on  the 
knees,  and  the  hands  stretched  out  as  if  in  prayer.  St.  Anthony 
was  greatly  at  a  loss  to  know  how  he  should  bury  the  body, 
because  he  had  no  proper  instruments  for  digging  a  grave. 
But  two  immense  lions  came  up,  and  tearing  up  the  ground, 
made  a  hole  large  enough  for  the  purpose;  then,  making  evi- 
dent signs  of  mourning  for  Paul,  and  licking  the  feet  of  Antho- 


216  ST.  GERMANUS  AMD  IGNATIUS. 

ny,  they  went  quietly  away.  (lb.  103,  and  also  St.  Jerome's 
Life  of  Paul,  Tom.  I.) 

We  may  next  turn  to  the  case  of  St.  Germanus,  bishop  of 
Auxerre  in  the  fifth  century,  who  separated  from  the  society  of 
his  wife,  distributed  all  his  property  to  the  Church  and  the 
poor,  and  embraced  a  life  of  poverty  and  austerity.  Until  the 
day  of  his  death,  for  30  years  together,  he  never  touched 
wheaten  bread,  wine,  vinegar,  oil,  pulse  or  salt.  He  began 
every  meal  by  putting  a  little  ashes  into  his  mouth,  to  renew 
the  spirit  of  penance,  and  took  no  other  sustenance  than  barley 
bread,  made  of  grain  which  he  threshed  and  ground  with  his 
own  hands.  He  never  ate  oftener  than  once  a  day,  sometimes 
once  in  three  days,  often  only  once  a  week.  His  dress  was 
mean,  the  same  in  summer  and  winter,  and  he  always  wore  a 
hair  shirt  next  his  skin.  His  bed  was  strewed  with  ashes, 
without  a  bolster,  and  covered  with  sackcloth  and  a  single 
blanket.  He  washed  the  feet  of  the  poor,  and  served  them 
with  his  own  hands,  while  he  himself  was  fasting.    (lb.  238.) 

The  founder  of  the  famous  order  of  the  Jesuits,  St.  Ignatius, 
is  one  of  the  most  glorious  of  these  saints,  in  the  estimation  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  as  might  naturally  be  expected.  Of  him 
it  is  related,  that  through  the  week  he  always  fasted  on  bread 
and  water,  but  on  Sundays  he  added  a  few  boiled  herbs,  sprin- 
kled over  with  ashes.  He  wore  an  iron  girdle,  a  hair  shirt,  and 
lay  on  the  ground; 'and  his  acts  of  austerity  were  carried  to 
the  highest  possible  point  of  endurance,  if  not,  indeed,  far  be- 
yond it.     (lb.  260.) 

St.  Clare  was  another  saint,  who  instituted  an  order  of 
nuns  in  the  12th  century.  She  wore  neither  shoes  nor  stock- 
ings,  lay  on  the  ground,  observed  a  perpetual  abstinence, 
and  never  spoke  but  when  obliged  by  charity  or  necessity. 
She  always  wore  next  her  skin  a  rough  garment,  made  of 
bristles.  Sometimes,  considering  the  ground  too  pleasant  a 
resting  place,  she  strewed  it  all  over  with  twigs,  and  placed  a 


ST.    MARTIN    AND    ST.    PATRICK.  217 

wooden  block  for  her  bolster.  She  was  afflicted  with  con- 
tinual diseases  and  pains  for  eight  and  twenty  years,  yet 
would  allow  herself  no  other  indulgence  than  a  little  straw  to 
lie  on.     (lb.  302.) 

In  the  biography  of  St.  Martin  it  is  said,  that  near  the  time  of 
his  death  he  had  a  fever ;  nevertheless,  he  spent  the  night  in 
prayer,  lying  on  ashes  and  hair  cloth.  His  disciples  intreated 
him  to  allow  at  least  a  little  straw  under  him.  But  he  replied: 
It  becomes  not  a  Christian  to  die  otherwise  than  upon  ashes. 
I  shall  have  sinned  if  I  leave  you  any  other  example,  (lb. 
65.) 

These  instances,  however,  are  exceedingly  mutilated,  when 
compared  with  the  full  accounts  of  the  original  records;  be- 
cause the  writer  of  the  book,  as  I  mentioned,  omitted  designed- 
ly all  that  he  conceived  likely  to  shock  and  disgust  the  taste 
of  the  age.  I  shall  therefore,  in  order  to  give  you  a  full  pic- 
ture, brethren,  be  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  a  less  fastidious 
authority,  but  the  most  unquestionable,  namely,  the  Roman 
breviary,  and  that  too,  in  its  most  improved  form. 

Thus,  in  the  life  of  St.  Patrick,  (Brev.  Rom.  Pars  Verna, 
p.  501,)  we  read  the  following  account  of  his  devotional  exer- 
cises, in  the  lessons  appointed  for  the  17th  of  March,  common- 
ly called  St.  Patrick's  day.  "  They  say  that  he  was  wont  to 
repeat  daily  the  whole  Psalter,  together  with  the  Canticles, 
and  two  hundred  hymns  and  prayers ;  three  hundred  times  on 
each  day  to  worship  God  on  his  knees,  and  in  each  canonical 
hour  of  the  day,  to  sign  himself  one  hundred  times  with  the 
sign  of  the  cross.  Dividing  the  night  into  three  portions,  he 
spent  the  first  in  running  through  one  hundred  psalms,  and  in 
two  hundred  genuflexions ;  the  second,  in  running  through  the 
other  fifty  psalms,  immersed  in  cold  water,  with  his  heart, 
eyes,  and  hands  raised  to  heaven.  But  the  third  part  he  gave 
to  a  slight  slumber  upon  the  bare  stone." 

There  was  a  saint  placed  in  the  calendar  of  the  Church  of 
u 


218  ST.    ALPHONSO    DE    LIGOUIO* 

Rome  so  lately  as  the  year  1830,  only  thirteen  years  ago,  by 
the  name  of  Alphonso  Maria  de  Ligorio,  of  whose  austerities 
and  self-inflicted  penances  his  confessor  gave  the  following  ac- 
count to  the  pope  : — "  I  know  for  a  certainty,"  saith  the  con- 
fessor, "that  this  servant  of  God  constantly  scourged  himself 
unbloodily  and  bloodily,  and  besides  the  unbloody  scourgings 
enjoined  by  the  rule  of  his  order,  he  was  wont  to  punish  him- 
self every  day  in  the  morning  before  the  usual  hour  of  rising, 
and  in  the  evening  after  the  signal  for  repose.  On  Saturdays 
he  scourged  himself  till  the  blood  flowed,  and  these  scourgings 
were  so  violent,  and  caused  so  much  blood  to  gush  from  his 
limbs,  that  not  only  was  his  linen  always  covered  with  it,  but 
you  might  see  even  the  walls  of  his  small  room  stained,  and 
the  very  books  which  he  kept  were  sprinkled  with  it." 

"And  further,  from  what  I  have  seen  with  my  own  eyes," 
continues  the  confessor,  "and  have  heard  declared  by  certain 
fathers  who  are  worthy  of  credit,  I  know  that  this  servant  of 
God  macerated  his  body  with  hair-cloth  containing  sharp 
points,  and  with  chains  as  well  on  his  arms  as  on  his  legs, 
which  he  carried  with  him  till  dinner  time,  and  these  were  for 
the  most  part  so  armed  with  sharp  points,  that  they  filled  with 
horror  all  who  ever  saw  them.  I  have  heard  say,  also,  that 
he  had  a  dress  filled  with  a  coat  of  mail  with  iron  points,  that 
he  had  bandages  of  camel's  hair,  and  other  instruments  of 
penance  were  casually  seen  by  me  and  by  others  of  my  com- 
panions, notwithstanding  his  zealous  and  circumspect  secrecy." 
(Finch,  Vol.  I.  266.) 

One  example  more,  brethren,  shall  close  this  list  of  distress- 
ing self-tormentors,  and  that  is  the  instance  of  St.  Rose  or 
Rosa,  a  nun  of  the  Tertian  order  of  St.  Dominick,  at  Lima, 
who  was  canonized  by  pope  Clement  X.,  A.D.  1673,  since  the 
Reformation.  The  account  was  published  at  Rome  in  the 
collection  of  the  Constitutions  of  Canonization,  in  the  early 
part  of  the  last  century,  and  is  as  follows : — 


ST.    ROSE    OF    LIMA.  219 

«'When  St.  Rose  was  still  a  little  child,  and  ignorant  of  the 
use  of  whips,  she  changed  the  stones  and  crosses  with  which, 
when  going  to  prayer,  her  maid  Marianne  used  to  load  her, 
into  iron  chains,  which  she  prepared  as  scourges,  with  which, 
after  the  example  of  St.  Dominick,  she  offered  herself  every 
night,  a  bloody  victim  to  God,  to  avert  his  just  anger,  even  to 
the  copious  effusion  of  streams  of  blood,  either  for  the  sorrows 
of  the  holy  Church,  or  for  the  necessities  of  the  endangered 
kingdom,  or  of  the  city  of  Lima,  or  for  compensating  the 
wrongs  of  sinners,  or  for  making  an  expiation  for  the  souls  of 
the  dead,  or  for  obtaining  divine  aid  for  those  who  were  in 
their  last  agonies;  the  servants  being  sometimes  horror-struck 
at  such  dreadful  blows  of  the  chains.  And  when  the  use  of 
these  was  forbidden  her,  she  privately  encircled  her  waist  with 
one  of  them  bound  three  times  around  her,  so  that  it  never  was 
apparent  that  she  wore  it,  except  when  she  was  under  the  tor- 
tures of  the  sciatica.  Lest  any  part  of  her  innocent  body 
should  be  free  from  suffering,  she  tortured  her  arms  and  limbs 
with  penal  chains,  and  stuffed  her  breast  and  sides  full,  with 
handfuls  of  nettles  and  small  briars.  She  increased  the  sharp- 
ness of  the  hair-cloth,  which  reached  from  her  neck  beneath 
her  knees,  by  needles  mixed  up  with  it,  which  she  used  for 
many  years,  until  she  was  ordered  to  put  it  off  on  account  of 
the  frequent  vomiting  of  blood.  When  she  laid  this  aside, 
however,  she  substituted  another  garment,  less  injurious  to  her 
health,  but  not  less  troublesome,  for  beneath  it  every  move- 
ment gave  her  pain.  From  these  sufferings,  in  order  that  her 
feet  might  not  be  free,  she  either  hit  them  with  sharp  stones, 
or  burned  them  in  an  oven,  that  they  might  have  their  share 
of  torture.  Upon  her  head  she  fixed  a  tin  crown  with  sharp 
nails  in  it,  and  for  some  years  never  put  it  on  without  being 
wounded.  When  she  grew  older,  this  was  replaced  by  one 
which  was  armed  with  ninety-nine  points." 

*'  As  to  her  bed,  she  desired  that  the  hardness  of  it  should 


220  ST.    RAYMOND. 

drive  away  rather  than  invite  sleep,  so  that  it  should  also  serve 
as  an  instrument  of  torture.  Her  pillow  was  either  an  un- 
polished trunk,  or  stones  concealed  for  that  purpose,  and  she 
filled  her  bed  with  sharp  pieces  of  tiles  and  triangular  frag- 
ments of  broken  jugs,  disposed  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
sharp  points  should  be  next  her  body ;  nor  did  she  try  to  sleep 
until  she  had  embittered  her  mouth  with  a  draught  of  gall." 
(Finch,  Vol.  I.  p.  266.) 

Here,  brethren,  we  have  a  full  length  portrait  of  that  as- 
tonishing and  cruel  superstition,  of  which  celibacy  was  only  a 
part,  and  monasticism  was  the  completion;  but  which,  instead 
of  tracing  its  derivation  from  the  pure  Gospel  of  Christ,  plainly 
descended  from  the  practices  of  the  ancient  Gymnosophists, 
brought  into  the  Church  through  the  Gnostic  heretics,  and 
finding  no  parallel  but  with  the  Hindoo  penances  of  the  pre- 
sent day.  But  of  such  saints  the  Roman  calendar  is  full. 
There  is  not  a  day  in  the  year  that  is  not  dedicated  to  them. 
The  miracles  attributed  to  them  are  innumerable:  and  their 
power  with  God  seems  always  to  be  computed  by  the  measure 
of  their  voluntary  torments.  Numerous  and  strange  are  the 
accounts  of  their  conflicts  with  Satan,  and  their  victories  over 
his  arts,  chiefly  by  making  the  sign  of  the  cross.  And  it  is 
common  to  find  their  devotions  represented  to  be  so  fervent, 
that  they  were  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  remained  suspended 
in  the  air,  and  had  their  countenances  irradiated  with  a  divine 
glory. 

Of  the  miracles  related  of  the  saints,  a  volume  might  be 
compiled,  which  would  at  least  excite  astonishment  if  it  did 
not  produce  edification.  A  very  few  must  suffice  us,  for  our 
tipie  is  nearly  exhausted. 

St.  Raymund,  of  Pcnnafort,  is  related  to  have  visited  the 
island  of  Majorca  with  the  king,  in  the  year  1256,  where  he 
had  occasion  to  rebuke  the  monarch  for  his  licentiousness. 
Not  finding  any  reformation  follow  the  rebuke,  he  asked  per- 


ST.  AGATHA.  221 

mission  to  leave  the  island,  and  return  to  his  convent  at  Barce- 
lona. But  this  the  king  not  only  refused,  but  forbid  any  one 
to  convey  him  out  of  the  island  under  penalty  of  death.  Upon 
this  the  saint,  full  of  confidence  in  the  Deity,  said  to  his  com- 
panion, 'A  king  of  the  earth  endeavours  to  deprive  us  of  the 
means  of  retiring,  but  the  King  of  heaven  will  supply  them.' 
He  then  walked  boldly  to  the  sea  shore,  extended  his  cloak 
upon  the  waves,  tied  up  one  corner  of  it  to  his  staiF  for  a  sail, 
and  having  made  the  sign  of  the  cross,  stepped  upon  it  without 
fear,  whilst  his  companion  stood  trembling  and  wondering  on 
the  beach.  "  In  this  new  kind  of  vessel,"  continues  the  histo- 
rian, "  he  was  wafted  with  such  rapidity,  that  in  six  hours  he 
reached  the  harbour  of  Barcelona,  sixty  leagues  distant,"  being 
at  the  rate  of  about  thirty  miles  an  hour.  (Butler's  Lives,  I. 
p.  133.) 

We  are  told  in  another  part  of  the  history  of  the  saints,  that 
the  veil  worn  by  St.  Agatha,  and  taken  out  of  her  tomb  for 
that  purpose,  had  several  times  driven  back  the  torrent  of 
burning  lava  which  issued  from  Mount  ^tna,  and  threatened 
to  overwhelm  the  city  of  Catana.  The  relics  of  St.  Januarius 
are  confidently  said  to  have  frequently  saved  the  city  of  Na- 
ples from  the  same  fate,  during  the  eruptions  of  Mount  Vesu- 
vius,    (lb.  Vol.  11.  p.  411.) 

The  five  wounds  of  St.  Fi*ancis  are  another  instance  of  a 
very  peculiar  kind.  For  after  the  saint  had  been  favoured 
with  a  vision  of  Christ,  or,  as  some  of  those  writers  seem  to 
consider  it,  after  he  had  been  transformed  into  Christ,  his 
body  was  found  to  have  received  the  image  of  a  crucifix.  His 
hands  and  his  feet  seemed  bored  in  the  middle  with  four 
wounds,  and  the  holes  seemed  to  be  pierced  with  nails  of  hard 
flesh.  The  heads  were  round  and  black,  and  appeared  be- 
yond the  skin  on  the  other  side,  and  were  there  turned  back 
as  if  clenched  with  a  hammer.     There  was  also  in  his  side  a 

u  2 


222  ST.  FRANCIS. 

red  wound,  like  one  made  by  the  piercing  of  a  lance.     (lb. 
457.) 

An  example  of  miracles  occurs  in  the  case  of  St.  Rose,  the 
same  already  mentioned,  which  is  thus  related  ; — "  On  her 
death-bed  she  invited  the  inanimate  plants,  after  an  unheard-of 
fashion,  to  praise  and  to  pray  to  God,  pronouncing  the  verse, 
'Bless  the  Lord,  all  ye  things  which  bud  on  the  earth:'  and 
she  so  visibly  persuaded  them,  that  the  tops  of  the  trees 
touched  the  earth,  as  if  adoring  their  Creator."  (Finch,  Vol. 
I.  268.) 

But  perhaps  all  these  cases  yield  to  the  example  recorded 
by  Baronius,  (Vol.  XIII.  p.  512)  when  six  of  the  monks  who 
belonged  to  the  order  of  preaching  friars,  were  beheaded  by 
the  command  of  the  Count  of  Thoulouse,  the  protector  of  the 
Albigensian  heretics.  But  behold,  after  they  were  dead,  the 
whole  six  took  up  their  own  heads,  and  carried  them  straight- 
way to  the  convent,  a  light  sent  from  heaven  going  before 
each  one. 

"The  same  wonder  occurred,"  remarks  Baronius,  "to  Dio- 
nysius,  the  Areopagite,  at  Paris,  and  to  Proculus,  at  Bononia, 
who  carried  their  own  heads,  by  a  miracle,  to  a  considerable 
distance  from  the  place  where  they  had  been  cut  off;  thus  fur- 
nishing to  the  world  not  only  a  proof  of  their  innocence,  but 
also  of  the  truth  of  that  faith  for  which  they  suffered."  Mul- 
titudes of  such  narratives  are  scattered  through  the  writings  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  some  far  more  preposterous  than  any  I 
have  mentioned ;  for  my  desire  is  not  to  provoke  a  smile  at 
those  superstitions,  which  ought  rather  to  inspire  us  with  com- 
miseration, but  to  particularize  those  facts  alone  which  are 
necessary  to  a  fair  development  of  principles,  and  thereby  at- 
tain to  a  correct  estimate  of  the  necessity,  the  importance,  and 
the  actual  results  of  the  Reformation. 

At  this  point  in  our  course,  then,  brethren,  let  us  pause  to 
survey  the  spectacle  presented  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  which 


RECAPITULATION.  223 

calls  herself,  remember,  unchanged  and  unchangeable,  the  in- 
fallible preserver  of  the  truth  taught  by  the  apostles.  Yet  she 
abrogates  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  which  the  Word  of  God 
had  expressly  approved;  she  takes  away  the  liberty  which  the 
Lord  had  established  for  his  ministry,  and  puts  her  own  re- 
strictions in  its  place;  she  introduces  a  new  order  of  the  laity 
founded  on  the  principles  of  celibacy,  retirement  from  the 
world,  and  mortification,  which  had  its  model  in  heathenism 
and  not  in  Christ  or  his  apostles;  she  exalts  her  own  new  rule 
of  celibacy  as  high  above  marriage  as  gold  is  above  silver;  she 
sets  up  a  new  kind  of  holiness  and  virtue,  in  the  cruel  scourg- 
ings,  and  chains,  and  fastings,  by  which  her  admired  saints 
obtained  such  distinction,  not  one  item  of  which  can  be  found 
in  the  life  of  Christ  or  his  apostles,  or  any  of  the  holy  men 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures;  she  grants  to  her  popes  the  privi- 
lege of  declaring  who  of  these  saints  shall  be  canonized,  and 
thus  be  publicly  set  forth  as  worthy  to  receive  prayers  and 
offerings.  She  undertakes  not  only  to  tell  us  of  the  miracles 
which  these  saints  performed  in  their  life-time,  but  to  assure  us 
that  their  relics  and  their  very  garments  can  stop  the  raging 
pestilence,  extinguish  the  devouring  flame,  and  arrest  the  tor- 
rent of  the  burning  lava.  She  warns  her  people  of  the  danger 
to  be  incurred  by  their  reading  of  the  Bible,  while  she  prepares 
the  lives  of  these  saints  for  general  circulation,  puts  them  in 
her  breviary,  and  commends  them  as  the  great  examples  of 
holiness  to  every  soul  of  her  communion;  and  while  it  can  be 
distinctly  shov/n  that  neither  clerical  celibacy,  nor  the  monas- 
tic system,  nor  retirement  to  religious  solitude,  nor  self-inflicted 
penances,  nor  abstinence  from  all  the  common  comforts  of  life, 
nor  irrevocable  vows,  nor  holiness  founded  upon  austerity,  had 
become  engrafted  upon  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  until  several  hun- 
dred years  after  the  apostolic  day ;  nevertheless,  the  Church 
of  Rome  gravely  reiterates  her  assertion,  that  she  is  unchanged 


224  SALUTARY    INFLUENCE 

and  infallible,  and  asks  us  what  cause  there  was  for  the 
Reformation  ? 

It  is  indeed  true,  however,  that  an  awkward  attempt  has 
been  often  made  to  justify  the  monastic  system  by  the  exam- 
ples of  John  the  Baptist,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  the  sons  of  the 
prophets,  and  the  family  of  Jonadab,  the  son  of  Rechab;  (Hie- 
ron.  ad  Paulinum,  de  Instit.  Mon.  Op.  om.  Tom.  I.  p.  67,  C. 
D.)  not  one  of  which,  as  it  is  easy  to  prove,  can  yield  to  it  the 
slightest  support  or  semblance  of  authority.  But  the  simple 
and  the  conclusive  argument  is  derived  from  the  great  princi- 
ple of  the  Gospel,  that  the  Word  of  Christ  is  our  rule,  and  the 
hfe  of  Christ,  so  far  as  our  circumstances  make  it  applicable, 
and  especially  as  it  is  illustrated  by  his  apostles,  is  our  exam- 
ple. Hence  the  precept  of  St.  Paul,  "Be  ye  followers  of  me, 
as  I  also  am  of  Christ,"  furnishes,  at  once,  the  law  and  the 
commentary.  And  every  attempt  to  introduce  a  higher,  a 
stricter,  or  a  more  expedient  rule,  not  only  involves  the  peril 
of  religious  truth,  but  is  sure  to  prove,  in  the  end,  how  far  the 
wisdom  of  God  excels  the  inventions  of  men. 

The  doctrine  of  celibacy  and  the  institution  of  the  monastic 
system,  brethren,  furnish,  on  this  very  point,  the  most  instruc- 
tive lessons.  Nothing  could  be  more  corrupt,  nothing  more  de- 
based, nothing  more  licentious,  than  the  morals  of  the  clergy 
and  the  lives  of  the  monks  generally  became,  from  the  period 
of  their  complete  establishment  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 
And  although  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  say,  that  since  that  glo- 
rious Reformation,  the  morals  of  the  Roman  priesthood,  and  the 
character  of  the  monastic  and  conventual  institutions,  in  all 
those  countries  where  the  reformed  religion  is  known,  are  as 
pure  and  blameless  as  those  of  other  Christians,  yet  historical 
truth  compels  us  to  attribute  the  improvement,  not  to  the  effi- 
cacy of  celibacy  or  monachisrn,  considered  in  themselves,  but 
to  the  watchfulness  made  necessary  by  the  neighbourhood  of 
opposing  sects,  the  higher  tone  of  public  sentiment,  and  the 


OF    THE    REFOEMATIOIV.  225 

greater  diffusion  of  knowledge  and  intelligence  throughout  the 
mass  of  the  community. 

The  influence  of  the  Reformation  is  likewise  manifest  on  the 
whole  process  of  superior  sanctity,  as  carried  on  in  the  darker 
ages.  The  lives  of  the  saints  prepared  by  Rev.  Alban  Butler 
for  modern  use,  and  from  which  I  have  made  the  greater  part 
of  my  extracts,  is  quite  a  moderate  and  rational  set  of  biogra- 
phies, when  compared  with  the  original  documents  themselves. 
The  cruel  penances,  the  bloody  scourgings,  and  the  more  ex- 
travagant and  puerile  miracles,  are  either  omitted  altogether, 
or  so  softened  down,  as  to  present  a  very  different  and  assu- 
redly much  more  creditable  history;  although  enough  still 
remains  of  the  characteristic  error  to  make  it  a  dangerous 
book  to  a  young  and  ardent  mind.  This  emendation  also  is  a 
fruit  of  the  Reformation.  Enlightened  Roman  Catholics  them- 
selves cannot  believe  the  mass  of  venerable  superstitions  and 
absurdities  which  their  own  records  furnish;  and  hence  the 
universal  and  increasing  disposition  among  them — thank 
God ! — to  reduce  the  credit  of  the  saints,  to  say  comparatively 
but  little  about  their  miracles  and  merits,  to  cast  a  mantle  of 
kindly  oblivion  over  their  austerities,  and  to  preach  and  to 
write  more  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  simple  and  only 
effective  doctrines  of  the  everlasting  Gospel. 

Our  next  lecture,  brethren,  will  present  that  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  which  stands  in  direct  connexion  with  our 
last  subject,  namely,  the  worship,  or  veneration,  as  it  is  now 
more  frequently  called,  of  the  virgin  Mary  and  the  saints. 
And  as  it  will  require  but  a  few  more  lectures  to  carry  us 
through  our  intended  course,  I  trust  you  will  feel  sufficient 
interest  in  them  to  continue  your  attention.  After  all,  my 
beloved  brethren,  what  ought  to  engage  us  more  earnestly, 
next  to  the  securing  our  own  hope  in  Christ,  than  the  condi- 
tion of  that  Church,  which  not  only  unites  so  many  claims  of 
antiquity,  of  former  power,  and  of  historical  importance,  but 


226  CONCLUSION. 

which  numbers,  in  our  own  day,  so  vast  a  proportion  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  is  steadily  gaining  ground  in  our  own 
country?  How  grateful  should  we  be  to  the  providence  of  that 
gracious  God,  who  dissipated  the  darkness  which  brooded  over 
Europe  before  the  sixteenth  century,  and  who  has  so  ordered  our 
own  lot,  that  we  enjoy  the  utmost  allowance  of  Scriptural  light 
and  Gospel  liberty!  And  how  deeply  concerned  and  affection- 
ately solicitous  should  we  be  for  the  increase  of  the  same  light 
and  liberty,  amongst  that  immense  portion  of  the  Christian 
family,  who  are  yet  clinging  so  fondly  to  their  errors  under 
the  mistaken  notion  of  infallibility,  and  who,  although  they 
know  it  not,  are  dependent  upon  the  very  Reformation  which 
they  despise,  for  the  comparative  purity,  moderation  and  peace 
of  their  practical  system.  Let  us  then  cherish  more  and  more, 
the  spirit  of  love  towards  them,  and  towards  every  other  divi- 
sion of  the  Universal  or  Catholic  Church.  Not  the  weak  and 
foolish  love  which  is  blind  to  every  fault,  and  deaf  to  every 
suggestion  of  error ;  but  the  true  Christian  love  which  strikes 
to  benefit,  which  rebukes  to  instruct,  which  wounds  to  heal. 
And  may  the  prayer  of  faith  and  charity  rise  upwards  on  the 
wings  of  hope,  that  the  mighty  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  may 
reduce  the  conflicting  elements  of  modern  religion  into  har- 
mony and  order,  that  infidelity  and  superstition  may  alike 
submit  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  whole  earth  be  filled  with 
his  glory. 


LECTURE  XI. 


The  Apocalypse,  xxli.  8,  9. — And  after  I  had  heard  and  seen,  I  fell 
down  to  adore  before  the  feet  of  the  angel  who  showed  me  these 
things,  And  he  said  unto  me  :  See  thou  do  it  not :  for  I  am  thy  fel- 
low servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of  them  who 
keep  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book  :  Adore  God.  (Doway 
version.) 


The  subject  appointed  for  the  following  lecture,  my  brethren, 
will  again  bring  us  into  communication  with  Dr.  Wiseman, 
from  whom  I  have  been  obliged  to  depart  for  two  lectures 
past,  because  the  important  matters  discussed  in  them,  namely, 
the  doctrine  of  anathema  and  persecution,  and  the  system  of 
celibacy,  penance  and  mortification,  which  form  the  essential 
elements  of  sanctification  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  are  totally 
passed  by  in  his  course,  either  because  he  thought  that  even 
his  ingenuity  could  not  give  them  an  acceptable  aspect  to  an 
English  audience,  or  because  he  concluded  that  the  less  there 
was  said  about  them,  the  better.  But  on  the  veneration  and 
worship  of  the  angels,  the  virgin  Mary,  and  the  saints,  our 
author  Is  strong  and  eloquent,  and  therefore  I  shall  quote  from 
his  volumes,  as  I  have  done  before. 

"  The  Catholic  doctrine,"  saith  he,  "  regarding  the  saints, 
is  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  it  teaches  that  the  saints  of 
God  make  intercession  before  him  for  their  brethren  on  earth. 
In  the  second  place,  it  teaches  that  it  is  lawful  to  invoke  their 
intercession  :  knowing  that  they  do  pray  for  us,  we  say  it 
must  be  lawful  to  turn  to  them,  and  ask  and  entreat  of  them 


228  INTERCESSION    OF    THE    SAINTS. 

to  use  that  influence  which  they  possess,  in  interceding  on  our 
behalf."     (Vol.  II.  p.  80.) 

"  If  you  ask  a  Catholic,"  continues  our  author,  "what  he 
means  by  the  communion  of  saints,  he  tells  you  at  once,  that 
he  understands  by  it  an  interchange  of  good  offices  between 
the  saints  in  heaven,  and  those  who  are  fighting  here  below 
for  their  crown,  whereby  they  intercede  on  iheir  part  on  our 
behalf,  look  down  on  us  with  sympathy,  take  an  interest  in  all 
that  we  do  and  suffer,  and  make  use  of  the  influence  they 
necessarily  possess  with  God,  towards  assisting  their  frail  and 
tempted  brethren  on  earth.  And  to  balance  all  this,  we  have 
our  offices  towards  them,  inasmuch  as  we  repay  them  in 
respect,  admiration  and  love,  with  the  feeling  that  those  who 
were  once  our  brethren,  having  run  their  course,  and  being  in 
possession  of  their  reward,  we  may  turn  to  them  in  the  confi- 
dence of  brethren,  and  ask  them  to  use  that  influence  with 
their  Lord  and  Master  which  their  charity  and  goodness 
necessarily  move  them  to  exert."     (P.  81.) 

Proceeding  to  show  how  this  idea  is  founded  upon  the 
doctrine,  that  the  departed  saint  cannot  have  forgotten  his 
personal  associates  when  he  leaves  this  world,  our  author  asks 
the  question :  "  Who  will  for  a  moment  imagine — who  can 
for  an  instant  entertain  the  thought,  that  the  child  which  has 
been  snatched  from  its  parent  by  having  been  taken  from  a 
world  of  suffering,  does  not  continue  to  love  her  whom  it  has 
left  on  earth,  and  sympathize  with  her  sorrows  over  its  grave  ? 
Who  can  believe  that  when  friend  is  separated  from  friend, 
and  when  one  expires  in  the  prayer  of  hope,  their  friendship 
is  not  continued,  and  that  the  two  are  not  united  in  the  same 
warm  affection  which  they  enjoyed  here  below  ?  And  if  it 
was  the  privilege  of  love  on  earth — if  it  was  one  of  the  holiest 
duties,  to  pray  to  the  Almighty  for  him  who  was  so  perfectly 
beloved— can  we  suppose  that  this  holiest,  most  beautiful  and 
most  perfect  duty  of  charity,  hath  ceased  in  heaven  1     Can  we 


ROMAN    ARGUMENT.  229 

believe  that  God  would  deprive  charity  of  its  highest  preroga- 
tive, when  he  has  given  it  its  brightest  crown  V  (lb.  82,  83.) 
Our  author  passes  on  from  this  eloquent  interrogation  to 
exhibit  some  Scriptural  evidence  on  this  branch  of  the  argu- 
ment. "  We  have  the  plainest  and  strongest  assurances," 
saith  he,  "  that  God  does  receive  the  prayers  of  the  saints 
and  the  angels,  and  that  they  are  constantly  employed  in  sup- 
plications on  our  behalf.  For  we  have  the  belief  of  the 
universal  Jewish  Church,  confirmed  in  the  new  law.  The 
belief  of  the  old  law  is  clear,  for  we  find  that  the  angels  are 
spoken  of  constantly  as  in  a  state  of  ministration  over  the 
wants  and  necessities  of  mankind.  In  the  book  of  Daniel, 
for  instance,  we  read  of  angels  sent  to  instruct  him,  and  we 
have  mention  made  of  the  princes,  meaning  the  angels  of 
different  kingdoms. — Our  Saviour  speaks  of  this  as  a  thing 
well  understood — '  Even  so,'  saith  he,  '  there  shall  be  joy  in 
heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repentelh,  more  than  over  ninety 
and  nine  just  persons  that  need  no  repentance.' — We  are  else- 
where told  that  the  saints  of  God  shall  be  like  his  angels. 
We  have  also  the  angels  of  individuals  spoken  of,  and  we  are 
told  not  to  offend  any  of  Christ's  little  ones,  or  make  them 
fall,  because  their  angels  always  see  the  face  of  their  Father 
who  is  in  heaven. — But  in  the  Apocalypse,  we  have  still 
stronger  authority,  for  we  there  read  of  our  prayers  as  being 
perfumes  in  the  hands  of  angels  and  saints.  One  blessed 
spirit  stood  before  a  mystical  altar  in  heaven,  having  a  golden 
censer,  and  there  was  given  unto  him  much  incense,  that  he 
should  ofl^er  the  prayers  of  all  saints  upon  the  golden  altar, 
which  is  before  the  throne  of  God.  And  the  smoke  of  the 
incense  of  the  prayers  of  the  saints  ascended  up  before  God, 
from  the  hand  of  the  angel.  And  not  only  the  angels  but 
the  twenty-four  elders,  cast  themselves  before  the  throne  of 
God,  and  pour  out  vials  of  sweet  odours,  which  are  the 
prayers  of  the  saints."     (lb.  p.  83,  4,  5.) 

X 


230  ROMAN    ARGUMENT. 

"From  all  this,"  continues  Dr.  Wiseman,  "it  is  proved 
that  the  saints  and  angels  know  what  passes  on  earth,  that 
they  are  aware  of  what  we  do  and  suffer,  that  they  actually 
present  our  prayers  to  God  and  intercede  in  our  behalf  with 
him.  Here  then  is  a  basis,  and  a  sufficient  one  for  our 
belief;  that  prayers  are  offered  for  us  by  the  saints,  and 
therefore  that  we  may  apply  to  them  for  their  supplications." 
(lb.  85.) 

In  these  quotations,  brethren,  we  see  a  specimen  of  the 
whole  system  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which,  beginning  in 
truth,  goes  on  with  inference  after  inference,  until  the  result 
becomes  a  dangerous  error.  The  communion  of  saints,  the 
fact  that  the  departed  spirit  continues  to  love  and  pray  for 
its  individual  friends  and  family ;  that  the  angels  are  minister- 
ing spirits  sent  forth,  as  St.  Paul  declares,  to  minister  to  those 
that  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation;  that  through  the  intelligence 
given  by  these  ministering  angels,  the  departed  saints  are  pro- 
bably informed  of  all  that  interests  them  on  earth,  and  that  the 
progress  and  prosperity  of  the  whole  Church,  as  well  as  the 
happiness  of  their  individual  friends,  are  the  constant  subject  of 
their  supplications;  that  in  heaven,  the  four  and  twenty  elders, 
with  the  cherubim,  offer  up  golden  vials  full  of  odours,  which  are 
the  prayers  of  saints,  and  that  the  communion  of  the  whole  is 
thus  sustained  in  affection,  sympathy,  and  supplication  for  us 
by  the  departed  saints,  and  in  love,  and  remembrance,  and 
desire  to  enjoy  their  society  on  our  part,  below — all  this  we 
grant  and  believe  as  fully  as  the  Church  of  Rome,  because  we 
have  the  testimony  of  the  Word  of  God  in  its  favour.  On 
this  true  basis,  however,  they  have  erected  a  lofty  structure  of 
superstition,  and  I  fear  I  must  add,  impiety,  in  no  part  of  which 
can  we  discern  any  real  authority  of  Scripture  or  right  reason. 
We  deny  utterly,  therefore,  the  inference  of  Dr.  Wiseman, 
that  because  we  believe  the  departed  saints  remember  and  pray 
for  us,  therefore  it  is  right  that  we  should  pray  to  them.     We 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  231 

deny  that  there  is  any  knowledge  or  power  in  the  Church  on 
earth  to  pronounce  upon  the  salvation,  much  less  upon  the 
glorification  of  any  particular  saint.  We  may  hope  and  trust, 
and  feel  a  happy  persuasion  of  their  bliss,  but  the  Lord  alone  can 
pronounce  an  authoritative  judgment.  We  also  deny  that  the 
angels  are  to  be  worshipped  or  addressed  in  prayer,  and  the 
whole  mass  of  worship  established  by  the  Church  of  Rome  in 
honour  of  the  virgin  Mary  and  the  saints,  we  hold  ourselves 
prepared  to  prove  to  be  unscriptural,  unknown  to  the  primitive 
Church,  and  utterly  unfavourable  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
gospel. 

These  are  strong  assertions,  brethren,  but  not  stronger,  I 
trust,  than  the  evidence  will  fully  justify.  I  should  not  under- 
take, however,  to  prove  the  correctness  of  our  doctrine,  if  I 
were  confined  to  Dr.  Wiseman's  statement  of  the  other  side. 
He  tells  us,  indeed,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  thinks  it  right  to 
apply  to  the  departed  saints  for  the  benefit  of  their  supplica- 
tions; but  he  does  not  inform  us  how  the  application  is  made, 
what  sort  of  power  is  attributed  to  the  saints,  and  in  what  terms 
of  honour,  praise,  and  invocation,  this  portion  of  their  worship 
is  conducted.  These  defects  I  must  supply  in  the  first  place, 
by  setting  before  you  a  pretty  copious  selection  from  the  stand- 
ard books  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  then,  brethren,  you  will 
be  prepared  to  understand  the  importance  of  this  portion  of  our 
controversy. 

To  begin,  then,  with  the  virgin  Mary:  the  catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  declares  that  ''•  she  is  truly  and  properly 
called  Mother  of  God  and  man,"  and  'Immaculate,'  that  is, 
without  spot  or  slain,  (p.  47.)  As  the  apostles  sometimes  call 
Jesus  Christ  the  second  Adam,  so  "the  virgin  mother  we  may 
also,"  continues  this  catechism,  "  compare  to  Eve." — "  By  be- 
lieving the  serpent.  Eve  entailed  malediction  and  death  upon 
mankind;  and  Mary,  by  believing  the  angel,  became  the  instru- 
ment of  the  divine  goodness  in  bringing  life  and  benediction  to 


232  WOKSHIP    OFFERED    TO 

the  human  race.  From  Eve  we  are  born  children  of  wrath, 
from  Mary  we  have  received  Jesus  Christ,  and  through  him 
are  regenerated  children  of  grace.  To  Eve  it  was  said,  in 
sorrow  shalt  thou  bring  forth  children:  Mary  was  exempt  from 
this  law,  for  preserving  her  integrity  inviolate,  she  brought 
forth  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  without  experiencing  any  sense  of 
pain."     (lb.  49.) 

In  another  part  of  this  catechism,  on  the  subject  of  prayer, 
we  read  as  follows:  "To  the  duty  of  thanksgiving  belongs 
the  first  part  of  the  angelical  salutation.  When  we  say  by 
way  of  prayer:  'Hail  Mary,  full  of  grace,  the  Lord  is  with 
thee,  blessed  art  thou  among  women ;'  we  render  to  God  the 
highest  praise  and  return  him  most  grateful  thanks,  because 
he  accumulated  all  his  heavenly  gifts  on  the  most  holy  virgin; 
and  to  the  virgin  herself,  for  this  her  singular  felicity,  we  pre- 
sent our  respectful  and  fervent  congratulations.  To  this  form 
of  thanksgiving  the  Church  of  God  has  wisely  added  prayer 
to,  and  an  invocation  of,  the  most  holy  mother  of  God,  by 
which  we  piously  and  humbly  fly  to  her  patronage,  in  order 
that,  by  interposing  her  intercession,  she  may  conciliate  the 
friendship  of  God  to  us  miserable  sinners,  and  may  obtain  for 
us  those  blessings  which  we  stand  in  need  of  in  this  life,  and 
the  life  to  come.  Exiled  children  of  Eve,  who  dwell  in  this 
vale  of  tears,  should  we  not  earnestly  beseech  the  mother  of 
mercy,  the  advocate  of  the  faithful,  to  pray  for  us?  Should 
we  not  earnestly  implore  her  help  and  assistance?  That  she 
possesses  exalted  merits  with  God,  and  that  she  is  most  desi- 
rous to  assist  us  by  her  prayers,  it  were  wicked  and  impious 
to  doubt."     (Tb.  4.35.) 

To  have  a  distinct  idea,  brethren,  of  the  quality  of  the  wor- 
ship thus  enjoined,  we  must  look  at  the  language  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  worshipper. 

Thus  the  angelical  salutation,  or  Hail  Mary,  as  it  is  often 
called,  is  as  follows: 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  233 

"  Hail  Mary,  full  of  grace,  the  Lord  is  with  thee,  blessed  art 
thou  among  women,  and  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb, 
Jesus.  Holy  Mary,  mother  of  God,  pray  for  us  sinners,  now, 
and  in  the  hour  of  our  death.  Amen."  (True  Piety,  p.  23-4. 
New  York  edition  of  1826.) 

We  may  next  cite  the  language  of  their  confession. 

"  I  confess  to  Almighty  God,  to  blessed  Mary,  ever  a  virgin, 
to  blessed  Michael  the  archangel,  to  blessed  John  the  Baptist, 
to  the  holy  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  all  the  saints,  that  I 
have  sinned  exceedingly  in  thought  word  and  deed,  through 
my  fault,  through  my  most  grievous  fault.  Therefore  I  be- 
seech the  blessed  Mary  ever  a  virgin,  the  blessed  Michael  the 
archangel,  the  blessed  John  the  Baptist,  the  holy  apostles  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  all  the  saints,  to  pray  to  the  Lord  our  God  for 
me."     (lb.  24.) 

The  invocation  of  the  virgin,  the  guardian  angel,  and  the 
patron  saint,  enjoined  on  every  worshipper,  is  as  follows: 

"  O  holy  virgin,  mother  of  God !  my  advocate  and  pa- 
troness! pray  for  thy  poor  servant,  prove  thyself  a  mother 
to  me.  And  thou,  O  blessed  spirit,  my  guardian  angel,  whom 
God  in  his  mercy  hath  appointed  to  watch  over  me,  intercede 
for  me  this  day,  that  I  may  not  stray  from  the  paths  of  virtue. 
Our  glorious  apostle  St.  Patrick,  and  thou,  also,  O  happy  saint, 
whose  name  I  bear,  pray  for  me  that  I  may  serve  God  faith- 
fully in  this  life  as  thou  hast  done,  and  with  thee  glorify  him 
eternally  in  heaven.     Amen."     (lb.  p.  25.) 

From  the  Litany  of  the  blessed  virgin,  I  shall  next  extract 
some  of  the  prayers  and  titles  addressed  to  her. 

"  We  fly  to  thy  patronage,  O  holy  mother  of  God,  despise 
not  our  petitions  in  our  necessities,  but  deliver  us  from  all 
dangers,  O  ever  glorious  and  blessed  virgin." 

"  Holy  mother  of  God,  mother  of  divine  grace,  mother  of 
our  Creator,  most  powerful  Virgin,  most  merciful  Virgin, 
mirror  of  justice — pray  for  us.     Seat  of  wisdom,  cause  of  our 

X  2 


234  WORSHIP    OFFERED    TO 

joy,  Toiver  of  David,  House  of  Gold,  Ark  of  the  covenant, 
Gate  of  heaven.  Morning  Star,  Health  of  the  weak.  Refuge  of 
sinners,  Comforter  of  the  afflicted.  Help  of  (Christians,  Queen 
of  angels.  Queen  of  patriarchs,  Queen  of  prophets.  Queen  of 
apostles.  Queen  of  martyrs,  Queen  of  confessors.  Queen  of 
virgins.  Queen  of  all  saints, — pray  for  us."    (lb.  38-9.) 

Here  is  a  marvellous  collection  of  glorious  titles,  brethren, 
to  offer  to  any  creature;  but  perhaps  there  is  still  more  force  in 
the  following  prayer. 

"O  blessed  Virgin,  mother  of  God:  and  by  this  august 
quality  worthy  of  all  respect  from  men  and  angels,  I  come  to 
offer  thee  my  most  humble  homage,  and  to  implore  the  aid  of  thy 
prayers  and  protection.  Thou  art  all  powerful  with  the  Al- 
mighty, and  thy  goodness  for  mankind  is  equal  to  thy  influence 
in  heaven.  Thou  knowest,  O  blessed  Virgin !  that  from  my 
tender  years  I  looked  up  to  thee  as  my  mother,  my  advocate 
and  patroness;  thou  wert  pleased  to  consider  me,  from  that 
time,  as  one  of  thy  children,  and  whatever  graces  I  have 
received  from  God,  I  confess  with  humble  gratitude  that  it  is 
through  thee  I  receive  them.  Why  was  I  not  as  faithful  in 
thy  service,  as  thou  wert  bountiful  in  assisting  me!  But  I  will 
henceforth  serve,  honour  and  love  thee.  Accept,  O  blessed 
Virgin,  my  protestations  of  fidelity;  look  favourably  on  the 
confidence  1  have  in  thee;  obtain  for  me,  of  thy  dear  Son,  a 
lively  faith,  a  firm  hope,  a  tender,  generous,  and  constant  love. 
Obtain  for  me  a  purity  that  nothing  can  soil,  a  humility  that 
nothing  can  elate,  a  patient  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  that 
nothing  can  ever  disturb.  In  fine,  O  glorious  Virgin,  obtain 
for  me  so  faithful  an  imitation  of  thy  virtue  in  my  life,  that  I 
may  experience  the  power  of  thy  protection  at  my  death. 
Amen."    (lb.  180.) 

A  little  farther  on  in  this  authoritative  book  of  Roman  Catho- 
lic devotion,  we  find  what  is  called  a  "  Consecration  of  one's 
self  to  the  blessed  Virgin.'''' 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  235 

"Holy  Mary,  virgin  mother  of  God,  I  this  day  choose  thee 
for  my  mother,  queen,  patroness  and  advocate,  and  firmly  re- 
solve never  to  depart  either  by  word  or  action  from  the  duty  I 
owe  thee,  or  suffer  those  committed  to  my  charge  to  say  or  do 
an}^  thing  against  thy  honour.  Receive  me  therefore  as  thy 
servant  for  ever,  assist  me  in  all  the  actions  of  my  whole  life, 
and  forsake  me  not  in  the  hour  of  my  death.  Amen."  (lb. 
182-3.) 

After  this  follows  the  "prayer  of  St.  Bernard  to  the  blessed 
Virgin." 

"Remember,  O  most  pious  virgin,  that  it  is  unheard  of, 
through  all  ages,  that  any  one  who  had  recourse  to  thee,  im- 
plored thy  aid,  and  begged  the  assistance  of  thy  prayers,  ever 
was  forsaken.  Animated  with  the  same  confidence,  I  fly  to 
thee,  O  virgin  of  virgins,  mother  of  my  God !  I  come  to  thee 
and  cast  myself  at  thy  feet,  a  wretched  sinner,  groaning  and 
weeping.  O  mother  of  the  eternal  Word,  despise  not  this  my 
humble  supplication,  but  graciously  hear  and  mercifully  grant 
my  request."     (lb.  183.) 

In  the  introduction  to  another  form  in  this  same  book  of 
devotion,  namely,  the  Rosary  of  the  blessed  virgin,  the  prayer 
called  Hail  Mary,  is  commended  in  these  words :  "  It  was  com- 
posed in  heaven,  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  delivered  to  the 
faithful  by  the  angel  Gabriel,  St.  Elizabeth,  and  the  Church  of 
Christ."  And  afi;erwards  we  find  that  in  this  Rosary,  for 
every  single  repetition  of  the  Lord's  prayer,  it  is  ordered  that 
the  prayer  to  the  Virgin  shall  be  said  ten  times;  from  which 
we  learn  that  the  supplications  addressed  to  her  in  this  favourite 
form  of  devotion,  are  beyond  all  reasonable  allowance,  more 
frequent  than  those  made  to  the  Almighty.     (lb.  275.) 

The  third  part  of  this  Rosary  presents  to  the  worshipper 
what  is  called  the  fourth  and  fifth  glorious  mysteries,  being 
there  placed  in  company  with  the  resurrection  and  ascension 


236  WORSHIP    OFFERED    TO 

of  Christ,  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  following 
are  the  words  of  the  fourth  mystery  :— 

"Let  us  contemplate,  in  this  mystery,  how  the  glorious  vir- 
gin Mary,  after  the  resurrection  of  her  son,  passed  out  of  this 
world  unto  him,  and  was  by  him  assumed  into  heaven,  ac- 
companied by  the  holy  angels."  Then  follows  the  prayer: 
(lb.  285.) 

"O  most  prudent  virgin,  who,  entering  into  the  heavenly 
palace,  didst  fill  the  holy  angels  with  joy  and  man  with  hope, 
vouchsafe  to  intercede  for  us  in  the  hour  of  death,  that,  free 
from  the  illusions  and  temptations  of  the  devil,  we  may  joy- 
fully and  successfully  pass  out  of  this  temporal  state,  to  enjoy 
the  happiness  of  eternal  life.     Amen." 

The  fifth  mystery  is  thus  set  forth  under  the  title  of — 

"TAe  Coronation  of  the  Most  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  in 
Heaven.'''' 

"  Let  us  contemplate  in  this  mystery  how  the  glorious  vir- 
gin Mary  was,  with  great  jubilee  and  exultation  of  the  whole 
court  of  heaven,  and  particular  glory  of  all  the  saints,  crowned 
by  her  Son  with  the  brightest  diadem  of  glory."  After  which 
there  is  another  prayer : — 

"O  glorious  queen  of  all  the  heavenly  citizens,  we  beseech 
thee  accept  this  Rosary,  which,  as  a  crown  of  roses,  we  offer 
at  thy  feet,  and  grant,  most  gracious  lady,  that  by  thy  inter- 
cession, our  souls  may  be  inflamed  with  so  ardent  a  desire  of 
seeing  thee  so  gloriously  crowned,  that  it  may  never  die  in  us, 
until  it  shall  be  changed  into  the  happy  fruition  of  thy  blessed 
sight.     Amen." 

"  Hail !  holy  queen,  mother  of  mercy,  our  life,  our  sweet- 
ness, and  our  hope,  to  thee  do  we  cry,  poor  banished  children 
of  Eve:  to  thee  do  we  send  up  our  sighs,  mourning  and  weep- 
ing, in  this  valley  of  tears.  Turn,  then,  most  gracious  advo- 
cate, thine  eyes  of  mercy  toward  us,  and  after  this  our  exile  is 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  237 

ended,  show  unto  us  the  blessed  fruit  of  thy  womb,  Jesus,  O 
clement,  O  pious,  O  sweet  virgin  Mary." 

These  extracts  from  the  worship  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  dictated  to  her  people,  brethren,  contain  but  a  small  part 
of  the  devotion  addressed  to  the  virgin  Mary.  And  I  ask  you, 
is  it  worship,  or  is  it  merely  veneration  and  respect,  as  Dr. 
Wiseman  would  fain  persuade  us?  Does  not  the  whole  strain 
and  character  of  it  place  the  virgin  in  the  highest  scale  of  au- 
thority? Is  she  not  effectually  made  the  most  important  ob- 
ject of  the  heart's  affections,  so  that  the  sinner  who  secures 
her  advocacy  and  patronage  has  nothing  to  fear?  Does  she 
not  occupy  the  station  of  mother  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
rather  than  mother  of  his  humanity,  whose  wishes  are  abso- 
lute, whose  influence  is  omnipotent,  and  who,  although  she  is 
not  called  indeed  a  goddess,  nevertheless  has  the  almighty 
power  of  God  at  her  disposal?  Nay,  is  not  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic taught  to  regard  Christ  as  an  infant  under  the  govern- 
ment and  authority  of  his  mother,  not  simply  in  their  popular 
prints  and  pictures,  but  in  some  of  their  most  solemn  services? 
Let  me  appeal  for  my  evidence  to  another  and  a  most  extra- 
ordinary set  of  devotions,  drawn  up  for  nine  successive  days, 
and  for  this  reason  called  a  Novena,  and  addressed  to  the  In- 
fant Jesus,  as  if  the  glorified  Redeemer  of  the  world  were  an 
INFANT  STILL.  In  this  most  singular  piece  of  profanation,  the 
Saviour  is  addressed  by  the  title  of  infant  fifty  times.  As 
thus:  "Infant,  Jesus  Christ,  have  mercy  upon  us.  Infant, 
Son  of  the  Hving  God — Infant,  Son  of  the  virgin  Mary — In- 
fant, strong  in  weakness — Infant,  treasure  of  grace — have 
mercy  upon  us.  From  the  malice  of  the  world  deliver  us,  O 
Infant  Jesus.  From  the  pride  of  life  deliver  us,  O  Infant  Je- 
sus;" and  so  of  the  rest.  (lb.  316.)  What  is  the  meaning  of 
addressing  Christ  under  this  appellation.  Infant,  unless  it  be 
to  aid  in  fixing  upon  the  minds  of  the  worshippers  the  control- 
ling power  and  influence  of  his  mother?     And  when  we  con- 


238 


THE    VIRGIN    MARY 


sider  that  the  epithet  is  appUed  to  that  glorious  Saviour,  who, 
eighteen  centuries  ago,  ascended  up  to  heaven  in  the  full  per- 
fection of  his  divine  person,  both  God  and  man — is  it  too  much 
to  say  that  such  language  is  nothing  better  than  downright 
impiety? 

Another  part  of  this  sad  corruption,  brethren,  consists  in 
their  doctrine,  that  the  virgin  Mary  was  perfectly  pure,  both 
from  original  and  actual  sin.  And  this  is  not  only  found  fre- 
quently asserted  in  the  service,  called  the  office  of  the  blessed 
virgin  Mary,  but  there  is  at  the  end  an  anthem  and  prayer  de- 
claring the  same,  to  the  repetition  of  which  pope  Paul  V. 
granted  an  hundred  days  of  indulgence.  A  few  extracts  may 
be  necessary  to  prove  the  fact.  Thus,  for  instance,  one  of  the 
appointed  hymns  addresses  the  virgin  :• 

"  Hail,  ark  of  the  Covenant 

King  Solomon's  throne 

Bright  rainbow  of  heaven 

The  bush  of  vision. 

The  fleece  of  Gideon 

The  flowering  rod 

Sweet  honey  of  Samson 

Closet  of  God. 

Twas  meet  Son  so  noble 

Should  save  from  stain 

Wherewith  Eve's  children 

Spotted  remain, 

The  maid  whom  for  mother 

He  had  elected 

That  she  might  be  never 

With  sin  infected."— (lb.  p.  289.) 

The  poetry  is  none  of  the  best,  but  that  is  a  matter  of  no 
importance.  The  doctrine  inculcated  is  the  only  point  in 
question. 

Another  hymn  from  the  same  office,  may  exhibit  the  doc- 
trine more  plainly. 


IMMACULATE.  289 

"Hail  mother  and  virgin 
Of  the  Trinity 
Temple;  joy  of  angels 
Seal  of  purity. 
Comfort  of  mourners 
Garden  of  pleasure 
Palm  tree  of  patience 
Chastity's  measure. 
Thou  land  sacerdotal 
Art  blessed  wholly 
From  sin  original 
Exempted  solely."— (Ih.  290.) 

The  anthem  and  prayer  which  the  pope  distinguished  by  the 
one  hundred  days'  indulgence,  is  as  follows : 

"This  is  the  branch,  in  which  was  neither  knot  of  original, 
nor  bark  of  actual  sin  found.  In  thy  conception,  O  virgin, 
thou  wast  immaculate.  Pray  unto  the  Father  for  us  whose 
Son  thou  didst  bring  forth."     And  next  follows  the  prayer  : 

"  O  God,  who  by  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  blessed 
virgin,  didst  prepare  a  fit  habitation  for  thy  Son,  we  beseech 
thee,  that  as  by  the  foreseen  death  of  her  same  Son,  thou  didst 
preserve  her  pure  from  all  spot,  so  likewise  grant,  that  we,  by 
her  intercession  made  free  from  sin,  may  attain  unto  thee, 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  thy  Son,  who  with  thee  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  liveth  and  reigneth,  one  God,  world  without 
end.     Amen."     (lb.  294-5.) 

Here,  therefore,  we  perceive  that  the  virgin  Mary  is  declared 
not  to  have  been  a  sinner,  and  therefore  it  results,  that  to  her, 
Christ  was  not  a  Saviour,  but  only  a  Son.  For  Christ  saith 
himself,  that  he  came  "  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  • 
repentance.  The  whole  need  not  the  physician,  but  they  that 
are  sick."  But,  according  to  their  doctrine,  she  needed  no  Sa- 
viour. Her  humanity  was  as  pure  as  his  own,  her  claims  of 
perfect  obedience  to  the  law  of  God  as  high,  her  right  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  by  her  own  merits  as  absolute.     So  that, 


240  PRAYER    TO    ST.    ALOYSIUS. 

although  the  Church  of  Rome  has  indeed  lell  uncorrupted  the 
great  articles  of  the  Christian  faith  which  concern  the  divinity, 
the  incarnation,  the  spotless  purity,  the  perfect  obedience  and 
the  infinite  merits  of  the  Redeemer,  yet  she  has  brought  for- 
ward, in  the  person  of  Mary,  an  object  of  faith  and  confidence 
as  pure,  as  obedient,  as  meritorious  and  as  powerful,  but  by 
reason  of  her  sex,  more  compassionate  and  merciful,  and 
therefore  more  ready  to  succour  the  sinner. 

But  let  me  pass  from  the  subject  of  the  virgin,  for  a  while, 
in  order  to  present  a  specimen  of  the  devotion  offered  to  the 
other  saints  and  angels.  Of  the  first,  a  prayer  to  St.  Aloy- 
sius,  united  with  Mary,  will  be  perhaps  sufficient. 

"  O  glorious  St.  Aloysius,  appointed  by  the  Church  of  Christ 
as  a  worthy  advocate  fouher  children,  intercede  for  me,  obtain 
for  me  what  I  ask,  if  it  be  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of 
my  soul.  Or,  at  least,  O  faithful  servant  of  God,  direct  my 
request,  that  it  may  turn  to  the  honour  of  my  dear  and  blessed 
Redeemer,  that  through  thy  patronage  he  may  see  in  me  the 
effect  of  his  sacred  passion  and  blood." 

"Omnipotent  and  eternal  God  of  heaven  and  earth,  who  hast 
been  pleased  to  adorn  the  ever  glorious  virgin  Mary  with  the 
treasures  of  heaven,  making  her  a  fit  habitation  for  thy  divine 
Son,  permit  thy  servant  to  offer  to  thee  those  virtues  which 
rendered  her  most  pleasing  in  thy  sight ;  accept  in  my  behalf 
her  pure  virginity,  her  perfect  obedience  and  humility,  her 
poverty  and  sufferings,  together  with  the  innocence,  penance 
and  perfect  resignation  of  thy  worthy  St.  Aloysius.  I  beseech 
thee  grant  me  a  true  compunction  of  heart,  give  me  a  true 
spirit  of  mortification  and  humility,  that  I  may  despise  all 
worldly  things  and  rest  in  thee  alone.  Grant  me  my  petition 
to  thy  great  honour  and  glory."  (lb.  256.)  Here,  brethren, 
the  worshipper  offers  to  God,  not  the  atonement  and  merits  of 
Christ,  but  the  virtues,  the  perfect  obedience,  and  sufferings  of 


PRAYER    TO    ST.    JOSEPH.  241 

the  virgin,  together  with  the  innocence,  penance,  and  resigna- 
tion of  St.  Aloysius ! 

Somewhat  of  the  hke  description  we  shall  find  in  the  prayer 
to  a  guardian  angel.     (lb.  162.) 

"O  holy  angel,  to  whose  care,  God,  in  his  mercy,  hath 
committed  me,  thou  who  assistest  me  in  my  wants,  who  con- 
solest  me  in  my  afflictions,  who  supportest  me  when  dejected, 
and  who  constantly  obtainest  for  me  new  favours,  I  return 
thee  now  most  sincere  and  humble  thanks,  and  I  conjure  thee, 
O  amiable  guide,  to  continue  still  thy  care,  to  defend  me 
against  my  enemies,  to  remove  from  me  the  occasion  of  sin,  to 
obtain  for  me  a  docility  to  thy  holy  inspirations,  to  protect  me, 
in  particular,  at  the  hour  of  my  death,  and  then  conduct  me  to 
the  mansions  of  eternal  repose.     Amen."     (lb.  167.) 

From  the  Litany  of  Saint  Joseph,  I  quote  a  few  sentences. 
"St.  Joseph,  the  virgin  consort  of  a  virgin  mother,  pray  for  us. 
St.  Joseph,  ruler  of  the  Lord  of  the  Universe — St.  Joseph, 
governor  of  the  Incarnate  Wisdom — St.  Joseph,  nursing  father 
to  him  by  whom  all  creatures  live — St.  Joseph,  saviour  of  the 
Saviour  of  mankind — St.  Joseph,  honoured  and  served  by  the 
King  and  queen  of  heaven — St.  Joseph,  seated  on  a  throne 
of  glory  near  those  of  Jesus  and  Mary— pray  for  us."  (lb. 
172-3.) 

What  sort  of  epithets  are  these,  brethren,  to  lavish  on  any- 
mortal  man  ?  Does  not  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  all  this,  pay  the 
saints  a  worship  as  substantial  and  as  true,  if  not  quite  as  ele- 
vated, as  any  that  they  give  to  God  himself?  Hear  what  the 
great  Bellarmine,  one  of  their  most  learned  and  accomplished 
champions,  acknowledges,  when  defending  the  propriety  of  ma- 
king vows  to  the  saints.  "A  vow,"  saith  he,  "does  not  suit  the 
saints,*  unless  inasmuch  as  they  are  gods  by  participation; 

*  Votum  non  convenit  Sanctis,  nisi  quatenus  sunt  Dii  per  partici- 
pationem. 

Y 


242  THE    WOBSHIP    OF   THE    VIRGIN 

and  we  know  for  certain  that  saints  reigning  with  Christ  are 
really  such.''''  (Phil pot's  Lett,  to  Butler,  33.)  Here  is  an 
honest  confession  of  the  only  doctrine  that  can  justify  such 
devotional  forms  as  these,  and  although  the  name  of  gods  is 
not  currently  given  to  them,  yet  I  confess  I  do  not  see  how 
they  can  be  otherwise  regarded  than  as  a  sort  of  inferior  di- 
vinities, upon  the  Roman  Catholic  system. 

But  tedious  as  our  extracts,  I  fear,  have  been,  from  the  de- 
votions of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  virgin  Mary,  I  must 
state  a  ^qw  additional  circunnstances  in  order  to  do  justice  to 
the  true  state  of  her  worship  at  the  present  day.  There  are, 
then,  be  it  noted,  as  many  festivals  to  her  honour,  as  to  the 
honour  of  Christ  himself.  Besides  the  festival  of  her  concep- 
tion, there  is  one  of  her  nativity,  another  of  her  presentation 
by  her  parents  in  the  temple,  and  another  of  her  assumption 
into  heaven.  A  similarity,  indeed,  between  her  and  our 
blessed  Lord,  is  studiously  affected.  Not  only  is  the  assump- 
tion of  her  body  into  heaven  made  to  parallel  our  Lord's 
ascension,  but  her  body  is  stated,  like  his,  to  have  been  mirac- 
ulously preserved  from  corruption.  A  whole  week  is  devoted 
to  the  honour  of  that  event,  and  on  the  fourth  day  a  lesson  is 
read,  in  which  the  narrative  of  Scripture  on  the  subject  of 
Christ  is  fairly  left  in  the  shade.  Thus  it  runs :  "  At  the 
time  of  her  glorious  falling  asleep,  all  the  apostles  who  were 
employed  in  their  holy  mission  through  the  whole  earth,  for 
the  salvation  of  mankind,  were  in  a  moment  carried  aloft 
through  the  air  and  brought  together  at  Jerusalem.  While 
they  were  there,  they  saw  a  vision  of  angels,  and  heard  the 
hymns  of  the  hosts  of  heaven,  and  lo  !  with  divine  glory  she 
delivered  her  soul  info  the  hands  of  God.  But  her  body 
was  taken  amidst  the  songs  of  angels  and  of  the  apostles,  and 
deposited  in  a  coffin  at  Gethsemane,in  which  place  the  melody 
of  the  angels  continued  for  three  days.  At  the  end  of  those 
days  the  apostles  opened  the   tomb,  to  enable  Thomas,  who 


AS    PROFESSED    AT    THIS    DAY.  243 

alone  had  hitherto  been  absent,  to  fulfil  a  wish  which  he  felt, 
to  adore  that  body  which  had  borne  the  Lord.  On  opening 
it,  the  body  was  no  where  to  be  found,  but  only  the  grave- 
clothes  in  which  it  had  been  wrapped,  and  from  them  issued 
an  ineffable  odour,  pervading  the  atmosphere  around.  So 
wonderful  and  mysterious  an  event  astonished  the  apostles, 
who  could  draw  from  it  but  one  conclusion,  that  it  had  pleased 
the  Word  of  God  that  her  immaculate  body,  by  which  he  was 
incarnate,  should  be  preserved  from  corruption,  and  should  be 
at  once  translated  to  heaven,  without  waiting  for  the  general 
resurrection." 

In  the  service  of  the  next  day  is  the  following  lesson  : 
"  But  who  is  sufficient  to  conceive  how  glorious  on  this  day 
was  the  progress  of  the  queen  of  the  world !  With  what 
transport  of  devout  affection  the  whole  multitude  of  the 
heavenly  hosts  went  forth  to  meet  her!  With  what  hymns 
she  was  conducted  to  the  throne  of  glory!  With  how  placid, 
how  serene  an  aspect,  with  what  divine  embraces  she  was 
received  by  her  Son,  and  exalted  above  every  creature, — with 
that  honour  which  became  the  worth  of  so  great  a  mother, 
and  that  glory  which  befitted  so  great  a  Son."  (Philpot's  Let- 
ters to  Butler,  41,  42.) 

"  Providing  in  all  things,  therefore,  and  through  all  things, 
for  the  wretched,  she  consoles  our  fear,  she  excites  our  faith, 
she  strengthens  our  hope,  she  drives  away  our  distrust,  she 
raises  our  pusillanimity.  You  feared  to  approach  the  Father ; 
terrified  at  only  hearing  him,  you  fled  among  the  trees ;  He 
has  given  Jesus  Christ  to  you  as  a  Mediator.  What  cannot 
such  a  Son  obtain  from  such  a  Father?  He  will  be  heard 
for  his  own  sake,  for  the  Father  loves  the  Son.  But  perhaps 
you  fear  also  in  him  the  Divine  Majesty,  because,  though  he 
was  made  man,  he  was  still  God.  Do  you  desire  to  have  an 
advocate  with  him  1  Have  recourse  to  Mary. — She  also  will 
be  heard  jfor  her  own  sake*     For  the   Son   will  hear  the 


244  DEVOTIONS    TO 

mother,  and  the  Father  will  hear  the  Son."  (Finch,  Sup- 
plement, p.  186,) 

But  one  set  of  extracts  more,  brethren,  shall  be  imposed 
upon  your  patience,  and  that  is  taken  from  a  form  of  devotion 
now  used  by  the  Roman  Catholics  of  England,  called  the 
Devotion  to  the  sacred  heart  of  Mary  ;  I  transcribe  it  because 
I  think  it  may  be  called  the  climax  of  this  idolatry.  It  is  as 
follows : 

"  As  the  adorable  heart  of  Jesus  was  formed  in  the  chaste 
womb  of  the  blessed  virgin,  and  of  her  blood  and  substance, 
so  we  cannot,  in  a  more  proper  and  agreeable  manner,  show 
our  devotion  to  the  sacred  heart  of  the  Son,  than  by  dedicating 
some  part  of  the  said  devotion  to  the  ever  pure  heart  of  the 
mother.  For  you  have  two  hearts  here  united  in  the  most 
strict  alliance  and  tender  conformity  of  sentiments,  so  that  it 
is  not  in  nature  to  please  the  one,  without  making  yourself 
agreeable  to  the  other,  and  acceptable  to  both.  Go  then, 
devout  client,  go  to  the  heart  of  Jesus,  hut  let  your  way  he 
through  the  heart  of  Mary, — Presume  not  to  separate  and 
divide  two  objects  so  intimately  one  or  united  together,  but 
ask  redress  in  all  your  exigencies  from  the  heart  of  Jesus, 
and  ash  this  redress  through  the  heart  of  Mary.''"' 

"  This  form  and  method  of  worship  is  the  doctrine  and 
very  spirit  of  God's  Church,  it  is  what  she  teaches  us  in  the 
unanimous  voice  and  practice  of  the  faithful,  who  will  by  no 
means  that  Jesus  and  Mary  should  be  separated  from  each 
other  in  our  prayers,  praises,  and  affections."  (Philpot's  Let- 
ters to  Butler,  Sup.  p.  387.) 

"  Come  then,  hardened  and  inveterate  sinner,  how  great 
soever  your  crimes  may  be.  Come  and  behold,  Mary  stretches 
out  her  hand,  and  opens  her  breast  to  receive  you.  Though 
insensible  to  the  great  concerns  of  your  salvation,  though, 
unfortunately,  proof  against  the  most  engaging  invitations 
and  inspirations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  fling  yourself  at  the 


THE    SACRED    HEART    OF    MARY.  245 

feet  of  this  powerful  advocate.  Her  throne,  though  exalted, 
has  nothing  forbidding,  nothing  dreadful :  her  heart  is  all  love, 
all  tenderness.  If  you  have  the  least  remains  of  confidence 
and  reliance  on  her  protection,  doubt  not  she  will  carry  you 
through  her  own  blessed  heart  in  the  most  speedy  and  favour- 
able manner,  to  the  truly  merciful  and  most  sacred  heart  of 
her  Son,  Jesus." 

Here  follows,  brethren,  what  is  called  an  angelical  exercise : 

"I  reverence  you,  O  ^acred  virgin  Mary,  the  holy  Ark  of 
the  Covenant,  and  together  with  all  the  good  thoughts  of  good 
men  upon  the  earth,  and  all  the  blessed  spirits  in  heaven,  do 
bless  and  praise  you  infinitely,  for  that  you  are  the  great 
mediatrix  between  God  and  man,  obtaining  for  sinners  all 
that  they  can  ask  and  demand  of  the  Messed  Trinity,''''  (lb. 
388.) 

Again :  "  I  am  the  protectress  of  my  servants,  says  the 
glorious  mother  of  God.  Give  me  your  heart,  my  dear  child, 
and  if  it  he  as  hard  as  a  flint,  I  will  make  it  as  soft  as 
wax,  and  if  it  be  more  foul  and  loathsome  than  dirt,  I  will 
render  it  more  clear  and  beautiful  than  crystal.  My  blessed 
servant  Ignatius  gave  me  one  day  power  over  his  heart,  and 
I  did  render  it  so  chaste  and  strong,  that  he  never  after  felt 
any  motion  of  the  flesh  all  his  life.  Give  me  your  heart,  my 
child,  and  tell  me,  in  the  sincerity  of  a  true  son,  how  much 
you  love  me,  your  chaste  mother  ?     Hail  Mary." 

"  O  my  dear  mother !  I  love  you  more  than  my  tongue  can 
express,  and  more  than  my  very  soul  can  conceive.  And  I 
reverence  you,  O  sacred  virgin  Mary,  and  together  with  the 
Holy  Trinity  bless  and  praise  you  infinitely,  for  that  you  are 
worthy  of  so  many  praises  as  none  can,  no,  not  yourself,  con- 
ceive. I  praise  and  magnify  you  a  thousand  thousand  times; 
and  ten  thousand  times  I  bless  that  sacred  womb  of  yours 
which  bore  the  Son  of  the  eternal  Father.     Hail  Mary." 

To  wind  up  the  whole,  I  add  one  out  of  many  of  the 
y2 


246  ARGU3IENT    PROVING 

various  salutations  and  benedictions  offered  in  this  devotional 
book  to  the  virgin ;  "  Hail  Mary,  lady  and  mistress  of  the 
world,  to  ivhom  all  power  has  been  given  both  in  heaven  and 
in  earth:'     (lb.  392,  3.) 

And  now,  brethren,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  moderate 
statement  of  Dr.  Wiseman,  upon  the  veneration  and  invocation 
of  the  saints  in  the  Church  of  Rome?  Is  not  the  charge  of 
idolatry  so  often  brought  against  her,  unhappily  but  too  well 
sustained  1  For  while  the  only  living  and  true  God  is  indeed 
confessed,  and  the  only  Saviour  and  Mediator  is  acknowledged, 
and  the  only  Holy  Spirit  is  worshipped,  in  the  fullest  terms  of 
orthodoxy,  yet  is  there  not  a  host  of  other  mediators  intro- 
duced, which  must  inevitably  draw  away  the  attention  and  de- 
votion of  the  people,  and  especially  is  not  the  Virgin  made  the 
most  prominent  and  efficient  instrument  of  salvation? 

The  Roman  Catholic,  indeed,  exclaims  loudly  against  this 
charge  of  idolatry,  because  the  virgin  and  the  saints  are  not 
called  gods,  nor  regarded  as  divine  beings,  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  Creator,  but  as  creatures  deriving  all  their  power  and  influ- 
ence from  the  Almighty,  who  alone  is  the  First  and  the  Last, 
the  eternal,  living  and  true  God.  But  there  can  be  no  greater 
error  than  to  suppose,  that  we  cannot  commit  idolatry  unless 
we  imagine  the  object  of  our  devotion  to  be  the  uncreated  Deity. 
The  language  of  the  first  and  second  commandment  is  express 
upon  the  principle:  "Thou  shalt  not  have  strange  gods  before 
me.  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  a  graven  thing,  nor  the 
likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above  or  in  the  earth 
beneath,  nor  of  those  things  that  are  in  the  waters  under  the 
earth;  thou  shalt  not  adore  them  nor  serve  them.  I  am  the 
Lord."  (1  Exod.  xx.)  Here  is  the  very  case  contemplated  and 
expressly  prohibited,  the  having,  along  withy  or  before  the  true 
and  supreme  God, -other  objects  of  worship  and  devotion,  taken 
from  the  things  of  heaven  and  earth.  The  angels  are  worship- 
ped by  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  here  are  the  things  of  heaven. 


THAT  SUCH  WORSHIP  IS  IDOLATRY.  247 

The  saints  are  worshipped,  their  images  and  their  relics,  and 
these  are  the  things  of  earth.  The  commandment,  therefore, 
forbids  the  creatures  being  worshipped  as  creatures,  and  by 
those  who  knew  they  were  creatures ;  and  with  this  agrees  the 
description  which  St.  Paul  has  recorded  in  the  1st  ch.  of  his 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  where,  speaking  of  the  heathen,  he 
saith,  "  that  they  worshipped  the  creature  more  than  the  Crea- 
tor, who  is  blessed  for  ever."  If  such  were  not  the  design  of 
the  great  commandment  of  the  law,  it  would  have  had  no 
practical  application.  For  it  is  worthy  of  great  observation, 
that  this  is  precisely  the  character  of  all  idolatry — to  take 
the  creature  and  place  it  in  the  rank  of  divinity,  only  in  a 
subordinate  position  to  the  supreme  Deity.  Is  it  not  familiar 
to  every  well  instructed  child,  that  the  Roman  emperors  were 
generally  canonized  by  a  decree  of  the  senate,  and  were  from 
that  time  counted  among  the  gods?  But  did  any  of  their  wor- 
shippers think,  for  all  that,  of  confounding  them  with  the  supe- 
rior deities?  Nay,  were  not  these  superior  deities  themselves 
believed  to  have  been  once  human  beings,  who,  on  account  of 
their  great  achievements,  were  taken  into  heaven?  Here, 
then,  was  the  very  principle  of  idolatry,  the  giving  or  ascribing 
to  creatures  acknowledged  to  be  such,  a  seat  among  the  celes- 
tial host,  making  them  the  objects  of  prayer,  and  supposing 
them  capable  of  hearing  and  favourably  answering  the  suppli- 
cations of  their  worshippers;  and  so  true  is  the  application  of 
this  principle  to  both  these  kinds  of  idolatry,  that  the  very 
same  Latin  word  which  was  attached  to  the  old  Roman  empe- 
rors after  canonization,  is  to  this  day  used  before  the  names  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  saints.  Divus  Augustus,  the  god  Augus- 
tus, said  the  old  heathen  Roman,  speaking  of  the  deified  empe- 
ror; Divus  Thomas,  the  god  Thomas,  Divus  Bernardus,  the 
god  Bernard,  says  the  modern  Christian  Roman,  speaking  of 
the  canonized  saints.  This  language,  indeed,  we  do  not  find  in 
the  English,  because  the  writers  of  the  Roman  Church  know 


248  ARGUMENT  PROVING 

that  it  would  be  inexpedient,  but  in  the  Latin  it  is  familiar. 
You  remember,  brethren,  the  extract  from  their  most  learned 
controversialist,  Bellarmine,  in  which  he  candidly  avows  that 
the  canonized  saints  are  gods  by  participation  ;  so  that  nothing 
can  be  more  exact  than  the  correspondence  "between  the  rank 
which  the  old  heathen  Romans  assigned  to  their  inferior  dei- 
ties, and  that  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  assigns  to 
her  saints.  And  yet,  no  one  will  pretend  to  say  that  the  wor- 
ship paid  to  the  inferior  gods  of  the  heathen  was  not  idolatry, 
because  the  worshipper  acknowledged  that  they  were  only 
canonized  men.  The  result  of  the  argument  seems  to  my 
mind  clear:  that  if  we  worship  any  other  than  the  one  living  and 
true  God,  we  are  not  the  less  idolaters,  because  we  know  the 
object  of  our  worship  to  be  a  creature,  and  confess  it  to  be  in- 
ferior in  some  respects  to  the  supreme  and  self-existent  Deity. 
It  is  enough  to  constitute  this  deadly  sin,  if  we  ascribe  any  of 
the  attributes  or  render  any  of  the  homage  to  creatures,  which 
belongs  only  to  Him ;  for  the  commandment  is  express :  "  Thou 
shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve." 

Hence,  it  may  be  safely  inferred,  that  the  Church  has  no 
authority  to  sanction  the  offering  of  prayer  to  the  saints,  or  even 
to  the  angels,  for  the  offering  of  prayer  is  an  act  of  worship, 
due  to  the  Creator  alone.  It  is  indeed  advanced  as  a  specious 
apology  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  they  only  ask  the 
angels  and  the  saints  to  pray  for  them;  and  that,  as  Christians 
are  directed  to  ask  this  of  one  another,  while  on  earth,  much 
more  may  they  solicit  the  prayers  of  the  faithful  who  are  in 
heaven.  We  have  seen,  brethren,  how  far  beyond  this  is  the 
truth  of  the  matter.  But  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  it  was  so,  the  difference  between  the  cases  would  still  be 
such,  as  to  destroy  the  application  of  the  supposed  analogy. 
It  is  indeed  true  that  we  are  told  to  pray  for  one  another,  and 
that  the  effectual  prayer  of  the  righteous  man  availeth  much. 


THAT  SUCH  WORSHIP  IS  IDOLATRY.  249 

It  is  true  that  St.  Paul,  in  many  parts  of  his  epistles,  asks  the 
brethren  to  pray  for  him.  Neither  do  we  doubt,  that  when  the 
righteous  departs  to  the  world  of  spirits,  his  soul  continues  to 
remember  and  to  pray  for  the  Church  on  earth.  But  we  who 
remain,  cannot,  without  a  positive  miracle,  converse  with  the 
departed  saint  in  language ;  and  although,  by  possibility,  it 
were  revealed  to  us,  that,  like  Elijah,  he  was  taken  into  heaven 
before  the  general  resurrection,  even  in  such  a  case  he  could 
not  be  present  with  us  to  hear  our  prayers,  unless  he  enjoyed 
the  incommunicable  attribute  of  God  himself,  which  is  to  be 
present  every  where  at  once.  From  this  very  principle  we 
know  that  the  Saviour  must  be  the  true  God  and  eternal  life, 
because  he  promised  what  none  but  God  could  perform  when 
he  said :  "  Wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them,"  and  "  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world :"  and  again, 
"  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  of  the  Father  in  my  name,  I  will 
do  it."  For  none  but  he  who  is  essentially  God,  can  possiblj'' 
possess  the  power  of  hearing,  every  where  at  once,  the  mil- 
lions upon  millions  of  prayers  that  are  offered  to  him;  so  that 
here  is  the  first  branch  of  the  sin  involved  in  the  worshipping 
an  invisible  and  departed  saint,  that  the  very  act  of  our  addres- 
sing him  when  he  is  not  within  the  reach  of  our  senses,  can 
only  be  justified,  by  supposing  him  to  be  invested  with  one  of 
the  attributes  of  God :  and  this  is  idolatry. 

But  there  is  a  second  charge  belonging  to  this  deplorable 
corruption  necessary  to  be  considered :  which  is,  that  the  de- 
parted saint  must  not  only  be  supposed  capable  of  hearing  all 
these  millions  of  prayers  at  once,  but  also  of  complying  with 
them;  and  this,  to  a  created  being,  is  equally  impossible:  for 
none  but  God  is  possessed  of  the  marvellous  power  of  attend- 
ing, at  once,  to  the  desires  of  innumerable  petitioners;  and  if 
we  suppose  any  creature  to  be  capable  of  this,  we  ascribe  to 


250  THE  VIRGIN  MARY 

that  creature  another  of  God's  incommunicable  attributes:  and 
here  is  the  second  branch  of  this  idolatry. 

These  deplorable  departures  from  the  plain  command  of 
the  Most  High  apply  to  the  whole  subject  of  prayers  to  angels 
and  saints;  but  there  is  a  peculiar  and  almost  incredible  ag- 
gravation of  the  sin,  when  we  examine  the  supremacy  given  to 
the  virgin  Mary,  and  perceive  how  completely  the  system  of 
modern  Romanism  assigns  to  her  the  titles  and  the  offices  of 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  bestows  upon  her  the  omnipo- 
tence of  the  blessed  Trinity.  A  melancholy  list  of  instances 
might  here  be  readily  made  out,  of  which  I  shall  only  take  a 
few  of  the  more  obvious,  suggested  by  the  extracts  which  I 
have  already  placed  before  you. 

Christ  is  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  saith  the  Scripture, 
and  Mary  is  currently  called  the  mother  of  God  by  the  Church 
of  Rome.  He  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light,  saith  the 
Scripture;  and  Mary  hrovght  life  and  benediction  to  the  hu- 
man race,  saith  the  Church  of  Rome.  Christ  is  our  life  and 
our  hope,  according  to  the  Scripture.  Mary  is  our  life,  our 
sweetness  and  our  hope,  according  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Christ  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings  and 
Lord  of  lords,  saith  the  Scripture.  Mary  is  the  Queen  of 
heaven,  the  Queen  of  angels,  the  Queen  of  patriarchs,  the 
Queen  of  prophets,  the  Queen  of  apostles,  the  Queen  of 
martyrs,  the  Queen  of  confessors,  the  Queen  of  all  saints, 
saith  the  Church  of  Rome.  "All  power  is  given  to  me  in  hea- 
ven and  in  earth,"  saith  the  glorious  Redeemer.  Hail,  Mary, 
lady  and  mistress  of  the  world,  to  whom  all  power  has  been 
given  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  saith  the  Church  of  Rome. 
"There  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  saith  the  Scripture.  O  sacred  Virgin 
Mary,  I  bless  and  praise  you  infinitely,  for  that  you  are  the 
great  mediatrix  between  God  and  man,  saith  the  Church  of 
Rome.     "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart 


MADE    EQUAL    TO    CHRIST.  251 

and  soul  and  mind,"  saith  the  Scripture.  O  my  dear  mother! 
I  love  you  more  than  my  tongue  can  express,  and  ?nore  than 
my  very  soul  can  conceive,  saith  the  Church  of  Rome.  "We 
have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous," 
saith  the  Scripture.  Hail,  mother  of  mercy,  most  gracious 
advocate,  turn  thine  eyes  of  mercy  towards  us,  saith  the 
Church  of  Rome.  "Come  unto  me,"  saith  Christ,  "all  ye 
that  are  weak  and  heavy  laden."  Come,  hardened  sinner, 
saith  the  Church  of  Rome,  come  and  behold,  Mary  stretches 
out  her  hand  and  opens  her  breast  to  receive  you.  "Greater 
love  than  this  hath  no  man,"  saith  our  Lord,  "that  he  lay 
down  his  life  for  his  friends,"  and  the  Scripture  speaks  of  our 
knowing  "the  love  of  Christ  that  passeth  knowledge,"  and 
again,  "This  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  him,  but  that  he  loved 
us,  and  gave  himself  for  us."  But  perhaps,  saith  the  Church 
of  Rome  to  the  sinner,  you  fear  the  divine  majesty  in  Christ, 
because,  though  he  was  made  man,  he  ivas  still  God.  Do  you 
desire  an  advocate  with  him?  Have  recourse  to  Mary.  She 
will  be  heard  for  her  own  sake.  Her  throne,  though  exalted, 
has  nothing  forbidding,  nothing  dreadful.  Her  heart  is  all 
love,  all  tenderness. 

"My  Son,  give  me  thy  heart,"  saith  the  Lord  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, "  and  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart,  and  put  a  new  spirit 
within  you,  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh."  (Ezek.  xxvi.  26.) 
But  the  Church  of  Rome  represents  the  virgin  Mary  as  saying, 
Give  me  your  heart,  my  dear  child,  and  if  it  be  as  hard  as 
flint  I  will  make  it  as  soft  as  wax,  and  if  it  be  more  foul  and 
loathsome  than  dirt,  I  will  render  it  more  clear  and  beautiful 
than  chrystal.  Another  office  of  the  Spirit  is  claimed  for  her: 
for  our  Lord  calls  him  the  Comforter;  but  the  Church  of 
Rome  calls  the  virgin  Mary  the  comforter  of  the  afflicted* 
"Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men,"  saith 
the  great  Redeemer,  (Mat.  xii.  31,)  "  but  the  blasphemy  against 


252  THE    AWFUL    PROFANATION 

the  Spirit  shall  not  be  forgiven.  And  whosoever  shall  speak 
a  word  against  the  Son  of  man  it  shall  be  forgiven  him,  but  he 
that  shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Ghost  it  shall  not  be  forgiven 
him,  nehher  in  this  world,  nor  in  the  world  to  come."  In  no 
respect  alarmed  by  this  awful  denunciation,  the  Church  of 
Rome  presumes  to  say  to  the  hardened  and  inveterate  sinner, 
Come,  how  great  soever  your  crimes  may  be  ;  come  and  he- 
hold,  Mary  opens  her  breast  to  receive  you.  Though  insen- 
sible to  the  great  concerns  of  your  salvation,  though,  unfor- 
tunately, proof  against  the  most  engaging  invitations  and  in- 
spirations of  the  Holy  Ghost,  fing  yourself  at  the  feet  of  this 
powerful  advocate.  Here,  brethren, — with  the  feeling  of  pro- 
found grief  I  say  it, — this  Church  holds  up  the  virgin  Mary  as 
having  not  only  more  love  and  tenderness  than  the  Saviour, 
but  more  effectual  power  over  the  heart  than  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  sinner  who  doubts  the  love  of  Christ,  is  told  to  have  no 
doubt  of  her  compassion — the  sinner  who  is  so  hardened  that 
he  is  proof  against  the  most  engaging  invitations  and  inspira- 
tions of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  still  told  to  cast  himself  at  her  feet. 
O  how  wonderful  the  blindness  of  the  human  understanding — 
how  subtle  the  devices  of  Satan, — when  a  Church,  retaining  all 
the  formal  doctrines  of  Scriptural  truth,  can  yet  be  led  to  place 
her  confidence  in  such  deep  and  awful  profanation ! 

It  is  painful  to  dwell  any  longer  upon  this  sad  attempt  to 
provide  a  parallel  to  Christ  in  the  virgin  mother.  But  the  in- 
genuity of  the  Roman  Church  has  carried  it  into  every  possible 
particular.  If  he  was  holy,  harmless,  undefiled  and  separate 
from  sinners — so,  says  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  she,  without 
the  slightest  taint  of  sin,  original  or  actual.  If  his  blessed 
body  saw  no  corruption, — neither,  says  the  Church  of  Rome, 
did  the  body  of  Mary.  His  resurrection  and  ascension  are 
outdone  by  her  resurrection  and  assumption  into  heaven.  For 
in  the  narration  given  of  this  latter  event,  there  is  a  plain  de- 
termination to  make  it  exceed  the  simple  history  of  Scripture. 


OP   THE    ROMAN    DOCTRINE.  253 

All  the  apostles  fly  through  the  air  from  distant  parts  of  the 
earth  to  be  present  at  her  death.  There  is  a  vision  of  angels 
to  honour  her.  Thomas  desires  to  adore  her.  The  angels 
sing  hymns  for  three  days.  Sweet  odours  impregnate  the  grave 
clothes,  but  the  body  is  gone  to  heaven,  and  all  the  celestial 
hosts  go  out  to  meet  her,  and  she  is  crowned  with  the  brightest 
diadem  of  glory.  Alas!  what  a  bold  and  daring  enter- 
prise is  here,  to  invent  such  a  tale,  and  force  mankind,  under 
peril  of  their  curse,  to  believe  it  as  firmly  as  the  Gospel. 
And  when  the  poor  Roman  Catholic  obeys  the  commands 
of  his  Church,  and  flings  himself,  to  use  their  own  language, 
at  the  feet  of  this  advocate,  who  has  all  power  in  heaven  and 
in  earth,  and  whom  he  implores  to  have  mercy  upon  him  by 
the  titles  of  mother  of  God,  refuge  of  sinners,  queen  of  heaven, 
comforter  of  the  afflicted,  his  life,  his  sweetness,  and  his  hope, 
— when  he  is  told  in  substance  that  she  is  more  loving  and 
compassionate  than  Christ,  and  that  when  the  Holy  Ghost  can 
do  no  more  for  him,  she  is  able  to  save, — shall  we  be  deceived 
by  the  assertion  that  the  deluded  believer  does  not  worship 
her?  that  he  only  asks  her  to  pray  for  him,  as  he  would  ask 
a  pious  Christian  to  do  on  earth?  Shall  we  be  told  that  there 
is  no  profanation  in  attributing  to  a  creature  the  omniscience 
and  omnipresence  of  God,  without  which  she  could  not  hear 
and  answer  the  prayers  of  her  innumerable  worshippers?  that 
there  is  no  idolatry  in  raising  a  mere  mortal  to  the  throne  of 
omnipotence  in  heaven?  that  there  is  no  blasphemy  in  attri- 
buting more  efficacy  to  her  than  to  the  Spirit?  no  perilous  im- 
piety in  giving  her  the  first  and  warmest  place  in  the  love  of 
the  heart,  and  the  confidence  of  the  soul? 

The  Scriptural  argument  which  belongs  to  the  question,  my 
brethren,  is  easily  stated;  since  not  only  is  the  whole  Bible 
destitute  of  a  single  passage,  which  ingenuity  itself  can  warp 
into  the  shape  of  prayers  or  worship  offered  to  a  departed 
saint,  but  we  have  several  pointed  reprehensions  of  all  ap- 

z 


254  THE    SCRIPTURAL    EVIDENCE 

proach  to  creature-worship.  Thus  the  homage  rendered  to 
our  blessed  Saviour  was  given  and  received  as  due  to  his  di- 
vine nature,  as  the  Son  of  God.  His  mother  was  so  far  from 
any  share  in  it,  that  he  seems  studiously  to  avoid  even  the  or- 
dinary appearance  of  regard;  doubtless,  as  we  may  reverently 
believe,  because  he  would  not  afford  the  slightest  excuse  for 
the  subsequent  corruption,  which  he  foresaw  would  come  upon 
his  Church  from  that  quarter.  And  well  did  the  blessed  vir- 
gin understand  the  high  and  holy  distance  thus  placed  between 
them.  When  at  the  marriage  supper,  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  she 
wished  the  necessities  of  the  party  to  be  supplied,  she  does  not 
presume  to  ask  him  for  any  direct  action,  but  merely  saith  to 
him;  They  have  no  ivine.  And  his  answer  is;  Womarij  what 
have  I  to  do  with  thee  ?  When,  on  another  occasion,  a  female 
lifted  up  her  voice  and  cried ;  Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare 
thee,  and  the  paps  which  thou  hast  sucked,  he  replied;  Yea, 
rather  blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  Wo7'd  of  God  and  keep 
it.  At  another  time,  we  read  that  one  told  him,  saying;  Thy 
mother  and  thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  speak  with 
thee.  And  he  answered  and  said  ;  Who  is  my  mother,  and 
who  are  my  brethren  ?  And  he  stretched  out  his  hand  to- 
wards his  disciples  and  said ;  Behold  my  mother  and  my 
brethren:  for  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  my  sister,  and  my 
mother.  And  lastly,  when,  on  the  cross,  he  saw  his  mother 
standing  together  with  St.  John,  he  saith  to  the  apostle ;  Be- 
hold thy  7nother:  and  to  the  virgin  Mary  he  saith;  Woman, 
behold  thy  son!  Here  we  see  a  striking  departure  from  the 
usual  language  of  filial  respect  and  affection,  which  can  only 
be  accounted  for  satisfactorily  by  these  two  peculiarities. 
First,  that  our  Lord  intended  the  fact  of  his  incarnation  to  be 
understood  as  the  mere  necessity  imposed  by  the  great  design 
of  his  obedience  and  atonement  for  our  ruined  world,  and  not 
by  any  means  as  a  personal  privilege  to  the  virgin,  which 


AGAINST    CllEATURE-WORSHIP.  255 

should  exalt  her  beyond  the  rest  of  his  disciples.  And,  se- 
condly, that  he  mercifully  judged  it  right  to  give  no  encou- 
ragement to  the  idolatry  which  he  foreknew  would  take  its  rise 
from  this  very  source.  Hence  he  nowhere  calls  her  mother. 
At  his  death,  he  transfers  her  character  of  mother  to  St.  John, 
and  it  is  remarkable  that  throughout  the  whole  of  the  book  of 
the  Acts,  the  fourteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  two  of  St.  Peter, 
the  Epistles  of  St.  James  and  St.  Jude,  and  the  three  Epistles 
of  St.  John,  her  name  is  not  once  mentioned.  As  to  the  Apo- 
calypse, St.  John  saw  the  heavens,  the  throne  of  God  and  of 
the  Lamb,  and  the  worship  of  all  the  celestial  host;  but  this 
imaginary  queen  of  heaven,  and  the  throne  of  St.  Joseph, 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  declares  to  be  near  to  the  thrones 
of  Jesus  and  Mary,  he  saw  not.  How,  indeed,  should  he  have 
seen  what  even  the  Church  of  Rome  did  not  dream  of,  until 
many  centuries  after  the  pure  days  of  primitive  Christianity 
had  passed  away ! 

But  these  are  not  the  only  proofs  which  the  Scripture  af- 
fords, as  if  to  leave  the  Church  of  Rome  without  excuse. 
When  St.  Peter  came  in  to  Cornelius  the  centurion,  "he  fell 
down  at  his  feet  and  worshipped.  But  Peter  said,  Stand  up, 
for  I  also  am  a  man.''''  And  yet  the  very  thing  which  St. 
Peter  would  not  allow  on  earth,  is  supposed  to  be  acceptable 
to  him  in  heaven.  Lastly,  the  text  furnishes  a  conclusive  tes- 
timony against  this  deplorable  abuse,  for  we  read,  near  the 
end  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  following  words:  "And  after  1  had 
heard  and  seen,"  saith  the  apostle  John,  "I  fell  down  to  adore 
before  the  feet  of  the  angel  who  showed  me  these  things,  and 
he  said  unto  me:  See  thou  do  it  not:  for  I  am  thy  fellow-ser- 
vant, and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of  them  who  keep 
the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book :  adore  God."  Here  it 
might  perhaps  be  supposed,  that  St.  John  was  offering  to  the 
angel  that  worship  which  belongs  to  the  Almighty;  but  this  is 
exceedingly  improbable,  because  he  was  thoroughly  instructed 


256  EVIDENCE    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

in  religious  truth;  and  there  is  nothing  about  the  passage  indi- 
cating that  he  regarded  the  sublime  creature  who  had  been  his 
interpreter  in  any  other  light  than  as  an  angel.  Neither  does 
the  word  which  the  translator  has  rendered  adore,  make  any 
difference;  because  it  is  the  same  word  in  the  original  which  is 
elsewhere  termed  worship,  and  which  is  occasionally  applied 
to  acts  of  reverence  that  had  nothing  of  a  religious  character. 
We  see,  therefore,  how  carefully  the  Scripture  guards  against 
every  approach  to  creature-worship,  even  when  applied  by  the 
purest  of  the  apostles  to  the  highest  angels  in  heaven,  where 
there  was  the  least  possible  danger  of  its  abuse.  How  incon- 
ceivable then,  is  it,  that  the  worship,  the  prayers,  the  litanies, 
the  rosaries,  the  novenas,  the  incense,  the  love,  faith,  confi- 
dence, and  devotion  inculcated  by  the  Church  of  Rome  upon 
her  muhitudes,  without  the  slightest  check,  and  indeed  with 
every  encouragement  to  idolize  the  saints  and  angels,  and  es- 
pecially the  virgin  Mary,  could  be  acceptable  to  the  Almighty 
King? 

But  Dr.  Wiseman,  with  every  other  advocate  of  his  system, 
although  the  Scripture  be  conclusive  against  him,  feels  strong 
in  the  fathers.  And  here,  brethren,  as  in  the  other  points  of 
our  discussion,  we  have  reason  to  be  thankful  for  the  evidence 
of  truth.  Even  amongst  his  chosen  witnesses,  there  is  enough 
to  prove,  that  the  corruption  we  are  opposing  was  unknown  to 
primitive  Christianity,  and  came  in  by  degrees,  after  the  Ro- 
man government  adopted  the  Church,  and  brought  upon  it  the 
temptations  of  ease,  and  affluence,  and  power.  I  am  con- 
scious, indeed,  that  you  must  be  wearied  by  the  length  of  our 
discussion,  and  would  willingly  spare  you  any  further  cita- 
tions of  authority  :  but  believing  that  you  would  rather  bear 
with  me  a  little  longer,  than  have  the  subject  dismissed  with- 
out a  full  examination,  I  must  present  a  few  of  those  passages, 
in  which  it  will  be  seen  that  the  earlier  witnesses  of  Rome  tes- 
tify in  our  favour. 


CHRYSOSTOM    AND    AUGUSTIN.  257 

We  shall  commence  with  the  celebrated  Chrysostom,  or- 
dained bishop  of  Constantinople,  A.  D.  398,  who  will  give  us 
a  very  clear  opinion  on  the  general  principle  of  intercessors 
between  us  and  the  Lord,  which  is  the  basis  of  all  saint  and 
angel  worship. 

"  When  we  want  any  thing  of  men,"  saith  this  eminent  fa- 
ther, "we  have  need  of  cost  and  money,  and  servile  adulation, 
and  much  going  up  and  down,  and  great  ado.  For  it  falleth 
out  oftentimes,  that  we  cannot  go  straight  to  the  lords  them- 
selves, and  present  our  gifts  and  speak  unto  them,  but  it  is  ne- 
cessary for  us  first  to  procure  the  favour  of  their  ministers, 
and  stewards,  and  officers, — and  then,  by  their  mediation,  to 
obtain  our  request.  But  with  God  it  is  not  thus ;  for  there  is 
no  need  of  intercessors  for  the  petitioners,  neither  is  he  so 
ready  to  give  a  gracious  answer,  when  entreated  by  others,  as 
by  ourselves  praying  unto  him." 

Again,  saith  the  same  eminent  teacher;  "  Mark  the  philo- 
sophy of  the  woman  of  Canaan.  She  entreats  not  James,  she 
beseeches  not  John,  neither  does  she  come  to  Peter,  but  she 
breaks  through  the  whole  company  of  them,  saying :  I  have 
no  need  of  a  mediator,  but  taking  repentance  with  me  for  a 
spokeswoman,  I  come  to  the  Fountain  itself.  For  this  cause 
did  he  descend,  for  this  cause  did  he  take  flesh,  that  I  might 
have  boldness  to  speak  unto  him.  I  have  no  need  of  a  me- 
diator :  Have  thou,  O  Lord,  mercy  upon  me."  (Finch,  L 
178.) 

From  Chrysostom,  brethren,  we  pass  to  Augustin,  another 
of  the  favourite  witnesses  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  "  Mary," 
saith  this  father,  "was  more  blessed  in  adopting  the  faith  of 
Christ,  than  in  conceiving  his  flesh.  For  when  some  one  said 
to  him.  Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare  thee,  he  answered;  Yea, 
rather  blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  Word  of  God  and  keep 
it.     Thus  her  maternal  relationship  would  have  profited  her 

z2 


258  GREGORY,    ATHANASIUS,   THEODORET. 

nothing,  if  she  had  not  borne  Christ  more  blessedly  in  her 
heart  than  in  her  flesh."     (lb.  162.) 

Let  us  next  hear  the  sentiment  of  Gregory  Nyssen,  a  bishop 
in  the  same  century,  but  a  little  earlier.  "The  Word  of 
God,"  saith  this  father,  "hath  ordained,  that  none  of  those 
things  which  have  their  being  by  creation  shall  be  worshipped 
by  men,  as  we  may  learn  out  of  nearly  all  the  divinely  in- 
spired Scriptures.  Moses,  the  tables,  the  law,  the  prophets; 
afterwards,  the  Gospel,  and  the  decrees  of  all  the  apostles, 
equally  forbid  our  looking  to  the  creature."     (lb.  210.) 

A  little  earlier  still,  but  in  the  fourth  century,  Athanasius, 
the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  saith:  "Peter,  the  apostle,  admo- 
nished Cornelius,  who  desired  to  worship  him,  saying,  1  also 
am  a  man.  The  angel  in  the  Apocalypse  admonished  John 
who  desired  to  worship  him,  saying;  See  thou  do  it  not;  I  am 
thy  fellow-servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of 
them  that  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book.  Worship  God. 
Therefore  it  appertains  to  God  only  to  be  worshipped,  and  the 
angels  themselves  are  aware  of  this ;  for  although  they  surpass 
others  in  glory,  they  are  all  creatures,  and  are  not  beings  to 
be  worshipped,  but  beings  who  worship  the  Lord.  The  angel, 
therefore,  admonished  Manoah,  the  father  of  Sampson,  who 
wished  to  sacrifice  to  him,  saying;  Offer  not  to  me,  but  to 
God."     (lb.  192.) 

Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyprus  in  Syria,  flourished  in  the  fifth 
century:  and  he  gives  testimony  in  favour  of  the  same  princi- 
ple. "Because,"  saith  he,  "they  commanded  men  to  worship 
angels,  he  enjoins  the  contrary,  namely,  that  they  should 
adorn  their  words  and  actions  with  the  commemoration  of  our 
Lord  Christ.  Send  up  thanksgiving,  he  says,  to  God  the 
Father  through  him,  (that  is  Christ)  and  not  through  angels. 
But  this  evil  practice  continued  in  Phrygia  and  Pisidia  for  a 
long  time,  for  which  cause  the  Council  of  Laodicea  forbade 
them  by  a  law  to  pray  to  angels."     (lb.  208.) 


EPIPHAN1US4  250 

Lastly,  let  us  hear  Epiphanius,  the  bishop  of  Cyprus,  who 
lived  in  the  same  century,  arguing  against  the  idolatry  of  the 
virgin  Mary,  by  a  sect  of  heretics  called  the  Collyridians.  "  I 
acknowledge,"  saith  he,  "  that  the  body  of  Mary  was  holy,  but 
nevertheless  she  was  not  a  god.  And  she  remained  ever  a 
virgin,  but  she  never  was  proposed  to  us  as  an  object  of  wor- 
ship, since  she  herself  worshipped  him  who  was  born  of  her 
flesh,  but  who  had  descended  from  heaven  and  the  bosom  of 
the  Father.  Wherefore,  the  sacred  gospel  also  admonishes  us, 
in  which  Christ  saith,  '  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee? 
My  hour  is  not  yet  come.'  Here  he  calls  her  woman,  lest  any 
one  should  think  her  to  be  of  a  superior  nature,  and  he  used 
this  word  as  if  prophesying  for  the  refutation  of  those  heresies 
which  he  knew  would  arise  in  the  world;  that  no  one  should 
be  led  away  by  too  great  admiration  of  the  holy  virgin,  to 
adopt  those  puerile  follies."     (Epiph.  Tom.  I.  p.  1061-2.) 

"  Wherefore,  truly,  let  Mary  be  honoured,  but  let  the  Father, 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  be  worshipped.  Let  no  one  wor- 
ship Mary:'     (lb.  1064.) 

There  is  another  part  of  this  ancient  writer's  work,  however, 
which  1  consider  particularly  interesting;  because  it  directly 
proves  that  the  vain  and  presumptuous  story  of  the  virgin's 
assumption  into  heaven,  which  1  have  quoted  to  you  from  the 
Roman  Breviary,  was  not  in  existence  in  the  fifth  century. 
You  will  remember,  brethren,  that  Epiphanius  was  a  distin- 
guished bishop  of  that  age,  the  author  of  two  learned  volumes 
against  heresies,  and  honoured  besides  with  a  place  on  the  list 
of  canonized  saints  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  Thus,  therefore, 
he  speaks  on  the  subject  of  the  virgin's  death,  in  an  argument 
against  another  set  of  heretics,  one  of  whose  errors  it  was  to 
depreciate  her  character  below  the  mark  of  Scripture.  "  The 
minds  of  men,"  saith  Epiphanius,  "  can  never  rest,  and  always 
incline  to  evil.  But  whether  the  holy  virgin  died  and  was 
buried,  so  that  her  death,  being  in  honour  and  in  chastity,  the 


260  JEROME,    AND    LEO. 

crown  of  virginity  was  granted  to  her;  or  whether  she  was 
slain,  as  the  Scripture  seems  to  indicate  by  these  words.  The 
sword  shall  penetrate  her  soul  also,  and  so  she  obtained  the 
glory  and  honour  of  the  martyrs,  and  her  sacred  body  was 
laden  with  all  felicity,  by  which  light  came  into  the  world;  or 
whether,  finally,  she  may  not  be  still  alive,  for  God  is  able  to 
do  whatever  he  pleases,  bvt  nothing  is  hnoicn  certainly  about 
her  departure,'^''  Here,  then,  we  have  a  positive  contradiction 
to  the  whole  story  of  the  virgin's  death,  burial,  resurrection, 
and  assumption,  as  related  in  the  Roman  Breviary.  The  truth 
is,  that  it  was  one  of  the  pious  fictions  prepared  to  edify  the 
multitude  in  the  dark  ages,  for  not  a  trace  of  it  can  be  found 
until  the  ninth  century.  To  this  I  will  add  the  testimony  of 
St.  Jerome,  who,  in  his  first  book  against  the  Pelagians,  ex- 
pressly declares  that  no  mortal  was  or  could  be  free  from  sin, 
except  Christ  alone:  which  his  commentator,  Erasmus,  re- 
marks, as  being  opposed  to  the  universal  sentiment  concerning 
the  virgin  Mary.  (Jerome  vol.  II.  p.  2071.)  And  Leo,  the 
great,  declares  in  many  places,  that  "  the  soil  of  human  nature, 
which  was  exposed  to  the  curse  through  the  first  Adam,  in 
the  single  instance  of  Christ  had  produced  a  blessed  germ,  free 
from  the  vice  of  its  parent  stock."  (Op.  p.  76.)  And  again, 
"Christ  took  our  nature,  but  not  its  sinfulness,  from  his  mo- 
ther." (lb.  72.)  Here  we  have  another  plain  contradiction  of 
the  modern  Church  in  the  doctrine  that  the  virgin  was  free 
from  sin. 

We  have  now  closed,  brethren,  a  very  painful  part  of  our 
promised  series  of  lectures ;  and  yet  one,  with  many  others,  of 
which  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  a  thorough  understand- 
ing, if  we  would  know  the  true  character  of  the  Roman  sys- 
tem. For  in  connexion  with  this  doctrine  of  the  virgin  and 
the  saints,  stands  the  worship  of  their  images  and  relics,  and  a 
whole  train  of  superstitions,  ending  in  purgatory  and  indul- 
gences.    Of  these,  images  and  relics  will  form  our  next  sub- 


CONCLUSION.  261 

ject,  and  will  present  to  us  an  abundance  of  facts,  proving  the 
corrupt  state  of  the  Church  and  the  urgent  necessity  which 
called  for  the  Reformation. 

Tiie  hour  will  not  permit  me  to  detain  you,  brethren,  by  any 
reflections  on  the  subject  of  our  discourse.  But  while  we  bless 
God  that  we  enjoy  the  pure  worship  of  his  Church, — while 
we  are  content  to  love  the  memory  of  his  saints,  without 
either  speculating  about  their  present  state,  or  attempting  to 
hold  with  them  any  direct  communication, — while  we  utterly 
abjure  the  notion  of  any  mediator,  advocate,  or  intercessor, 
besides  the  blessed  Son  of  the  Highest,  or  any  sanctifier, 
save  the  Holy  Spirit, — let  us  never  forget,  that  an  enlightened 
opposition  to  the  dangerous  corruptions  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  must  be  united  with  the  kindest  feelings  of  charity 
towards  her  people;  and  let  us  earnestly  implore  the  Giver  of 
every  good  and  perfect  gift,  that  the  pure  truth  of  his  own 
sacred  Word  may  open  their  eyes  to  see  their  errors,  and 
enable  them  to  put  their  whole  trust  and  confidence  in  Christ 
alone. 

And  for  ourselves,  beloved  brethren,  let  us  be  admonished 
of  another  kind  of  idolatry,  not  less  perilous,  although  it  be, 
indeed,  not  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  but  the  fruit  of  our  own 
worldly  and  unholy  temper.  Let  us  look  within,  and  search  the 
secret  chambers  of  our  hearts,  lest  the  creature  should  be  suf- 
fered to  occupy  the  throne  of  love  and  honour  which  belongs  of 
right  to  the  Creator.  The  worship  and  service  of  our  appetites 
and  passions,  the  idolatry  of  wealth,  and  pride,  and  pleasure, 
are  yet  more  fatal  to  the  soul  than  even  the  servile  supersti- 
tions which  have  formed  the  subject  of  our  lecture.  Our  hearts 
must  be  given  to  God,  our  souls  must  be  devoted  to  the  Re- 
deemer, or  the  sentence  of  destruction  will  await  us.  For  it  is 
written:  "  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him 
be  anathema,  maranatha."  May  the  powerful  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  arouse  and  quicken  us :  may  the  infinite  compas- 


262  CONCLUSION. 

sion  of  the  divine  Saviour  rest  upon  us:  may  the  blessing  of 
our  Father  in  heaven  guide  and  direct  us,  that  we  may  avoid 
the  snares  of  all  idolatry,  and  be  brought  at  last,  in  safety,  to 
the  mansions  of  eternal  peace  and  joy. 


LECTURE  XII. 

ExoD.  XX.  4. — Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  a  graven  thing,  nor  the 
likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  in  the  earth  be- 
neath, nor  of  those  things  that  are  in  the  waters  under  the  earth. 
Thou  shalt  not  adore  them,  nor  serve  them.     (Doway  version.) 

These  words,  my  brethren,  are  a  part  of  the  divine  law, 
pronounced  on  mount  Sinai,  by  the  voice  of  the  eternal  and 
invisible  God,  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  host  of  Israel.  Sad 
and  strange  is  the  history  of  the  disobedience,  which  the  chosen 
people  displayed  towards  this  commandment.  But  yet  more 
wonderful  and  melancholy  is  it  to  see,  how  the  Christian 
Church,  the  spiritual  Israel,  despising  the  threatenings  and 
warnings  of  Scripture,  fell  into  the  same  corruption;  and  even 
consecrated  the  awful  error  by  a  solemn  and  perpetual  de- 
cree, so  that  the  absolute  reverse  of  the  celestial  precept  was 
set  forth  as  an  important  part  of  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
curse  which  he  proclaimed  upon  the  worshippers  of  images, 
was  formally  denounced  against  those  that  worshipped  them 
not. 

There  is  no  part  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  however,  which  has  been  more  influenced  by  the  spirit 
of  the  Reformation  in  Protestant  countries,  than  that  which 
regards  the  worship  of  relics,  images,  and  the  cross.  And 
therefore,  in  order  to  place  you  in  full  possession  of  her  sys- 
tem, I  shall  first  state  the  form  which  it  assumes  in  the  hands 


264  THE    ROMAN    DOCTRINE    CONCERNING    RELICS. 

of  Dr.  Wiseman;  secondly,  give  you  the  authoritative  decrees 
of  the  Councils  of  Nice  and  Trent;  thirdly,  answer  the  argu- 
ments on  which  our  ingenious  author  relies;  and  lastly,  pre- 
sent some  facts,  which  will  exhibit  the  practical  operation  of 
the  doctrine  in  our  own  day,  in  those  parts  of  the  world  where 
the  sovereignty  of  the  Church  of  Rome  exists  in  full  perfection. 

According  to  this  arrangement  of  our  subject,  we  are  to 
commence  with  the  statement  of  Dr.  Wiseman,  which  is  in  the 
following  words : 

"The  Roman  Catholic  believes,"  saith  he,  "that  any  thing 
which  has  belonged  to  men,  distinguished  by  their  love  of  God, 
and  by  what  they  have  done  and  suffered  in  his  cause,  de- 
serves that  respect  and  honour  which  is  constantly  shown,  in 
ordinary  life,  to  that  which  has  belonged  to  any  great,  or  cele- 
brated, or  very  good  man." — "They  believe  that  they  please 
God  by  showing  respect  to  those  objects,  and  that  by  honour- 
ing these  relics  of  the  saints,  they  are  incited  to  imitate  their 
example."  (Vol.  II.  p.  96-7.)  "They  further  believe,  that  it 
has  pleased  God  to  make  use  of  such  objects,  as  instruments 
for  performing  great  works  and  imparting  great  benefits  to  his 
people ;  that  they  are  to  be  treated  with  respect,  and  with  an 
humble  hope,  that  as  God  has  been  pleased  often  to  employ 
them,  so  he  may  again;  and  thus  they  are  considered  as  pos- 
sessing symbolic  virtue.  Now  we  do  find,"  continues  our 
author,  "that  God  has  made  use  of  such  instruments  before. 
In  the  Old  Law,  he  raised  up  a  dead  man  by  his  coming  in 
contact  with  the  bones  of  one  of  his  prophets.  The  moment 
he  touched  the  holy  prophet's  bones,  he  arose,  restored  to  life." 
"We  read  that  upon  handkerchiefs  which  had  touched  the 
body  of  St.  Paul  being  taken  to  the  sick,  they  were  instantly 
restored  to  health  ;  and  these  were  relics  in  the  Catholic  sense 
of  the  word.  We  read  that  a  woman  was  cured,  who  only 
touched  the  hem  of  our  Saviour's  garment;  that  the  skirts  of 
his  raiment  were  impregnated  with  that  power  which  issued 


THE    ROMAN    DOCTRINE    CONCERNING    IMAGES.  265 

from  him,  so  as  to  restore  health  without  his  exercising  any 
act  of  his  will.  Here  is  the  foundation  of  our  practice,"  saith 
Dr.  Wiseman,  "  which  excludes  all  idea  of  superstition.  Those 
examples  prove  that  God  makes  use  of  the  relics  of  his  saints 
as  instruments  for  his  greatest  wonders, — and  consequently 
there  can  be  no  superstition  in  the  belief  that  he  may  do  so 
again."     (lb.  99.) 

On  the  other  point  of  the  worship  rendered  to  images  and 
pictures  of  the  saints,  our  learned  advocate  contents  himself 
with  saying,  that  "the  Council  of  Trent  defines  two  things  as 
the  belief  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  first,  that  it  is  whole- 
some or  expedient  to  have  pictures,  or  images,  and  represen- 
tations of  the  saints;  in  the  second  place,  that  honour  and 
respect  are  to  be  paid  to  them.  This,"  saith  he,  "is  therefore 
the  whole  of  our  doctrine."  (lb.  105.)  "We  agree  that  no 
image  should  be  made  for  adoration  or  worship.  But  the  sim- 
ple making  of  them  is  not  sinful,  for  it  was  prescribed  by  God. 
In  the  tabernacle,  there  were  cherubim  in  the  holy  of  holies, 
and  the  two  walls  of  the  temple  were  sculptured  with  graven 
images." — "The  whole  question,  then,  turns  upon  this:  whe- 
ther Roman  Catholics  are  justified  in  making  use  of  them  as 
sacred  memorials,  and  in  praying  before  them,  as  inspiring 
faith  and  devotion.  I  may  be  asked,"  continues  he,  "what 
warrant  there  is  in  Scripture  for  all  this?  I  might  answer,  that 
I  ask  none;  for  rather  I  might  ask,  what  authority  is  there  to 
deprive  me  of  these  objects?  because  it  is  the  natural  right  of 
man  to  use  any  thing  towards  promoting  the  worship  of  God, 
which  is  not  in  any  way  forbidden."  (lb.  106.)  "If  I  find 
that  a  picture,  or  representation  of  our  Saviour,  or  of  his  bless- 
ed mother,  or  of  his  saints,  acts  more  intimately  on  my  affec- 
tions, and  excites  warmer  feelings  of  devotion,  I  am  justified 
and  act  well,  in  endeavouring  so  to  excite  them." 

There  are  errors  enough,  brethren,  in  this  argument  of  Dr. 
Wiseman,  which  I  shall  notice  by  and  by;  but  I  must  pre- 

2  A 


266  COUNCIL    OF    TRENT    ON    KELICS. 

viously  rectify  the  greatest  error  of  all,  namely,  the  holding 
hack  the  full  extent  of  his  Church's  doctrine,  while  he  expressly 
declares  that  he  sets  forth  the  whole.  Let  me  therefore,  in 
the  next  place,  show  the  real  state  of  the  case,  by  going  to 
what  the  Church  of  Rome  admits  to  be  the  fountain  head,  the 
solemn  and  authoritative  decrees  of  the  General  Councils — the 
second  Council  of  Nice  being  the  great  authority  for  image  wor- 
ship, and  the  Council  of  Trent  having  pronounced  its  decision 
upon  the  entire  subject,  images,  relics  and  all;  and  that  too, 
since  the  Reformation.  When  we  have  learned  from  these  the 
doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church,  we  shall  be  prepared  to  test 
the  candour  of  our  learned  advocate,  and  to  discuss  the  argu- 
ment as  he  presents  it,  on  the  ground  of  Scripture  and  the  tes- 
mony  of  the  fathers. 

Of  these  two  Councils,  I  shall  first  cite  the  Council  of  Trent, 
in  the  25th  session  of  which,  (Hard.  Cone.  Tom.  X.  p.  168) 
after  enjoining  upon  all  bishops  and  priests  the  diligent  instruc- 
tion of  the  people  in  the  duty  of  venerating  and  invoking  the 
saints,  and  denouncing,  as  impious,  those  who  deny  that  such 
supplications,  "  whether  by  the  voice  or  by  the  mind,"  should 
be  rendered  to  them,  the  Council  proceeds  to  the  point  which 
more  immediately  concerns  our  present  subject,  in  these  words : 

"The  holy  bodies  also  of  the  martyrs  and  others,  living 
with  Christ,  are  to  be  venerated  by  the  faithful ;  for  they  were, 
when  living,  the  members  of  Christ,  and  the  temples  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  shall  be  raised  again  and  glorified,  and 
through  them  many  favours  are  bestowed  on  man  by  the  Al- 
mighty :  so  that  those  who  affirm  that  veneration  and  honour 
are  not  due  to  the  relics  of  the  saints,  or  that  it  is  useless  for 
the  faithful  to  honour  these  and  other  sacred  memorials,  and 
that  it  is  vain  to  visit  the  sepulchres  of  the  saints  in  order  to 
ask  their  help,  are  to  be  altogether  condemned.,  as  the  Church 
has  already  condemned,  and  does  also  noio  condemn  them.^^ 

"Moreover,"  continues  the  Council,  "the  images  of  Christ, 


COUNCIL  OF  TRENT  ON  IMAGES.  267 

of  the  virgin,  the  mother  of  God,  and  of  the  other  saints,  are  to 
be  had  and  retained,  especially  in  Churches,  and  due  honour 
and  veneration  are  to  be  rendered  to  them ;  not  because  it  may- 
be supposed  that  there  is  in  them  any  divinity,  or  virtue,  on 
account  of  which  they  are  to  be  worshipped ;  or  that  any  thing 
is  to  be  asked  of  them,  or  that  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in 
images,  as  was  formerly  the  case  amongst  the  heathen,  who 
rested  their  hope  on  idols;  but  because  the  honour  which  is 
exhibited  to  them,  is  referred  to  the  prototype,  which  they 
represent;  so  that  through  the  images  which  we  kiss,  and  before 
whom  we  uncover  our  heads  and  bow  down,  we  adore  Christ, 
and  venerate  the  saints  whose  similitude  these  images  do  bear. 
The  same  doctrine  is  sanctioned  by  the  decrees  of  the  Coun- 
cils, especially  the  second  Council  of  Nice,  against  the  oppo- 
sers  of  images.^'' 

"Let  the  bishops  diligently  teach,  that  the  people  are  to  be 
instructed  and  confirmed  in  the  assiduous  commemorating  and 
cherishing  of  the  articles  of  the  faith,  through  the  mysteries  of 
our  redemption,  expressed  historically  in  pictures  or  other 
similitudes ;  for  great  benefit  is  received  from  all  sacred  ima- 
ges, not  only  because  the  people  are  thereby  adm.onished  of  the 
blessings  and  gifts  which  they  have  received  from  Christ,  but 
also,  because,  through  the  saints  of  God,  miracles  and  whole- 
some examples  are  placed  before  the  eyes  of  the  people,  in 
order  that  they  may  return  thanks  to  God  for  them,  may  con- 
duct their  own  lives  in  imitation  of  the  lives  of  the  saints,  and 
may  be  excited  to  the  adoration  and  worship  of  God,  and  the 
cultivation  of  piety.  But  if  any  one  shall  teach  or  think  con- 
trary to  these  decrees,  let  him  he  anathema^ 

In  this  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  brethren,  you  per- 
ceive that  distinct  reference  is  made  to  the  second  Council  of 
Nice,  and  therefore  I  shall  proceed  to  set  before  you  the  defi- 
nitive action  of  that  celebrated  Council,  only  premising,  that  it 
sat  in  A.  D.  787,  after  the  introduction  of  images  had  been  for 


268  SECOND    COUNCIL    OF    NICE 

a  long  time  the  exciting  cause  of  the  most  distressing  tumults 
and  confusion ;  and  especially  after  a  previous  Council,  called 
by  the  Greek  emperor,  had  decided  against  images,  in  the 
strongest  and  plainest  terms.  In  this  quarrel  about  images, 
the  Church  of  Rome  took  one  side,  and  the  Church  of  Greece 
took  the  other;  and  the  second  Council  of  Nice  was  called  and 
sustained  through  Roman  influence. 

The  definitive  decree  of  this  Council  is  as  follows:  "Taught 
by  the  ancient  fathers,  we  salute  the  venerable  images. — Who- 
ever does  not  consent  herein,  let  him  be  anathema. — We  salute 
the  words  of  the  Lord,  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  by  which 
we  have  learned  to  honour  and  magnify,  in  the  first  place,  her 
who  is  truly  and  properly  the  mother  of  God,  and  superior  to 
all  celestial  powers ;  and  then  the  holy  and  angelic  powers, 
and  the  blessed  and  glorious  apostles,  the  prophets  and  noble 
martyrs  who  fought  for  Christ,  and  the  holy  and  god-bearing 
masters,  and  all  holy  men;  whose  intercessions  Ave  seek,  as 
able  to  render  us  acceptable  to  God  the  King  of  all,  keeping 
his  commandments,  and  diligent  to  live  in  virtue.  And  we 
salute  also  the  figure  of  the  precious  and  vivifying  cross,  and 
the  holy  relics  of  the  saints.  Moreover,  we  honour  and  salute 
these  precious  and  venerable  images,  and  honourably  adore 
them,  namely,  the  image  of  the  humanity  oi'  our  great  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  our  most  holy  and  pure  lady 
the  mother  of  God, — and  of  the  holy  incorporeal  angels,  who 
appeared  in  human  form  to  the  just.  In  like  manner  also,  the 
figures  and  effigies  of  the  divine  and  most  famous  apostles 
and  prophets,  and  of  the  martyrs  and  holy  men,  since  they  are 
able  by  their  pictures  to  lead  us  to  remember  them,  and  draio 
us  to  the  originals^  and  make  us  partakers  of  a  certain  sanc- 
tification:'     (Ilard.  Con.  Tom.  4.  p.  262,  &  p.  266.) 

"To  these,"  therefore,  ^^  kisses  and  honourable  adoration 
sRall  be  rendered,  but  not  that  superior  worship,  (latria)  which 
is  according  to  faith,  and  alone   becomes  the  diyiae  xiature. 


ON  IMAGES. 


269 


And  to  these,  namely,  the  precious  figure  of  the  vivifying 
cross,  and  to  the  holy  gospels,  and  the  other  holy  memorials, 
let  the  offering  of  incense  and  lighted  candles  be  exhibited  in 
their  honour,  according  to  ancient  custom.  For  the  honour  of 
the  image  passes  to  its  original,  and  whoever  adores  the  image, 
adores  in  it  the  substance  of  the  representation.^''  (lb.  455.) 

"If  any  one  does  not  admit  the  evangelical  narrations  made 
by  titles  or  pictures,  let  him  be  anathema.^^ 

"If  any  one  does  not  kiss  them,  as  made  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  and  his  saints,  let  him  be  anathema."  (lb.  471.) 

This  Council,  however,  brethren,  was  not  content  with 
these  decrees  in  favour  of  images,  relics,  and  the  sign  of  the 
cross.  They  even  went  so  far  as  to  oi-der,  that  no  Church 
should  be  erected  without  some  relics  of  the  saints  being  depo- 
sited therein,  as  if  the  Lord  could  have  no  earthly  sanctuary, 
separate  from  the  bodies  of  the  martyrs. 

"  Forasmuch  as  many  of  the  venerable  temples,"  saith  the 
Council,  "have  been  consecrated  without  the  relics  of  the  mar- 
tyrs, we  decree  that  relics  shall  be  placed  in  them  according  to 
the  accustomed  rule.  And  if,  from  the  present  time,  any 
bishop  be  found  to  consecrate  a  temple  without  relics,  let  him 
be  deposed,  as  one  who  transgresses  the  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition:' (lb.  491.) 

From  these  extracts,  you  may  readily  perceive  how  very 
much  diluted  and  moderated  is  the  representation  of  Dr. 
Wiseman.  He  says  nothing  of  the  word  adore — nothing  of  the 
kiss,  the  uncovering  of  the  head,  and  the  prostration  of  the 
vv^orshipper  before  the  holy  images — nothing  of  the  burning  of 
incense  and  lighting  of  candles  in  their  honour — nothing  of  the 
decree  that  no  Church  should  be  consecrated  unless  the  relics 
of  the  martyrs  were  placed  in  it,-  and  especially  nothing  of  the 
repeated  anatheinas  pronounced  against  all  who  should  pre- 
sume to  dissent  from  the  doctrine.  Here,  therefore,  we  have 
another  proof  of  the  influence  of  the  Reformation  upon  the 
2  A  2 


270  THE  ROMAN  ARGU31EXT 

Church  of  Rome,  in  all  those  countries  where  it  has  estabhshed 
its  Scriptural  principles.  Notwithstanding  their  confident  boast 
of  infallibility  and  unchangeableness,  we  find  a  manifest  shrink- 
ing, in  several  respects,  from  their  own  standards  of  doctrine  ; 
and  an  evident  effort  to  keep  their  more  objectionable  features 
in  the  shade.  And  we  thank  God  for  it,  and  earnestly  pray 
that  the  process  of  amelioration  may  go  on,  until  they  shall 
openly  free  themselves  from  all  that  they  cannot  justify,  and 
exchange  the  idle  claim  of  infallibility  for  the  substantial  bene- 
fits of  truth. 

But  1  am  now,  in  the  third  place,  to  examine  the  arguments 
adduced  by  our  learned  author  in  favour  of  the  Roman  doctrine : 
and  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  involves  first,  the  testimony  of 
Scripture,  and  secondly,  the  testimony  of  the  fathers. 

On  the  subject  of  relics.  Dr.  Wiseman  adduces  one  remarka- 
ble example  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  several  from  the 
New.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  man,  whose  body  was 
unintentionally  brought  in  contact  with  the  bones  of  the  pro- 
phet Elisha,  the  healing  of  the  woman  who  touched  the  hem 
of  our  Saviour's  garment,  the  curing  of  the  sick  by  the  hand^ 
kerchiefs  and  aprons  brought  to  them  from  the  person  of  St. 
Paul — all  prove,  according  to  the  Roman  doctrine,  that  it  has 
pleased  God  to  use  the  relics,  and  other  things  belonging  to 
the  Saviour  and  the  saints,  as  instruments  whereby  he  worked 
wonders;  and  therefore  the  Church  of  Rome  believes,  that 
what  he  has  done  once  by  such  instrumentality  he  may  do 
again;  and  this,  our  learned  author  seems  to  think,  is  a  suffi- 
cient justification. 

But  nothing  can  be  more  fallacious  than  this  reasoning, 
brethren,  although  it  looks  specious,  and  has,  in  fact,  deluded 
many  a  weak  mind.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  Al- 
mighty has  chosen  to  employ  those  various  kinds  of  instrumen- 
tality in  the  working  of  wonders,  and  whether,  as  he  has 
sometimes  done  so,  it  may  not  please  him  to  do  it  again.     On 


EXAMINED.  271 

such  a  proposition  there  can  be  no  dispute,  for  every  believer 
in  the  Bible  must  at  once  accede  to  it.  But  the  question  is, 
whether  these  occasional  and  extraordinary  manifestations 
were  erected  into  a  systematic  doctrine  for  the  Church,  and 
handed  down  as  a  part  of  her  creed  with  the  same  solemn  and 
abiding  authority,  as  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Trinity,  the 
incarnation,  and  the  atonement,  and  the  sacraments,  and  the 
ministry,  and  in  a  word,  the  principles  of  regular  and  constant 
belief  and  practice;  so  that  Christians  are  hound  always  to  ex- 
pect miracles  from  the  hones  and  handkerchiefs  of  the  saints, 
and  are  authorized  to  fulminate  anathemas  against  those  who 
think  such  wonders  were  only  intended  to  be  rare  and  occa- 
sional. 

The  distinction,  brethren,  is  all-important,  and  therefore  I 
am  anxious  to  make  myself  perfectly  understood.  Permit 
me,  therefore,  to  enlarge  upon  the  idea,  by  a  brief  sketch  of 
the  divine  dispensations,  with  relation  to  the  point  before  us. 

In  the  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  the  glorious 
gospel  of  his  salvation,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  was 
provided  for  our  fallen  world  ;  and  the  knowledge  of  his  truth 
was  given  at  various  periods  of  the  history  of  man,  marking 
what  maybe  called  epochs,  or  dispensations;  to  each  of  which 
a  system  was  attached,  forming  successive  developments  of 
the  same  great  plan,  and  suited  to  the  various  stages  of  the 
mighty  work,  which  the  Almighty,  by  his  own  right  hand 
and  holy  arm,  stood  pledged  to  perform. 

Of  these  dispensations,  the  patriarchal  was  the  first,  lasting 
from  the  fall  of  x\dam  until  the  deliverance  of  the  Israelites 
from  Egypt.  The  Mosaic  dispensation  was  the  second,  lasting 
from  the  giving  of  the  law  and  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle 
in  the  wilderness,  until  the  organization  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  Christian,  or  Gospel 
dispensation,  so  called  by  way  of  eminence,  was  the  third  and 
the  last,  which  is  to  continue  until  the  second  coming  of  our 


272  THE    ROMAN   ARGUMENT 

Lord,  and  is  now  supposed,  by  many,  to  be  near  its  termina- 
tion. In  each  of  these  dispensations,  there  was  the  same 
fundamental  truth,  and  the  same  gracious  purpose.  The 
difference  lay  in  the  various  degrees  of  their  development. 
And  perhaps  nothing  can  so  beautifully  express  their  unity 
and  their  distinctness,  as  the  language  of  our  blessed  Saviour, 
where  he  compares  them  to  the  blade,  the  ear,  and  the  full 
corn  in  the  ear,  carrying  on  the  analogy  to  the  time  of  his 
second  advent,  by  saying:  "afterwards  he  putteth  in  the 
sickle,  for  the  harvest  is  come." 

Now,  each  of  these  dispensations  had  its  wonders,  and  its 
SYSTEM.  The  wonders  were  granted  in  order  to  demonstrate 
that  the  system  was  of  divine  obligation,  worthy  of  all  faith 
and  confidence ;  but  the  system  was  the  regular  instruction  in 
truth,  both  theoretical  and  practical,  by  which  mankind  were 
to  be  brought  out  of  darkness  into  light — out  of  the  bondage 
of  Satan,  into  a  blessed  subjection  to  their  heavenly  King. 
The  system  of  the  patriarchal  stage  was  very  simple.  The 
revelation  was  handed  down  by  oral  communication  from 
father  to  son :  the  eldest  of  the  family  was  charged  with  the 
ofhce  of  priest  and  judge:  the  only  preparation  for  religious 
rites  was  an  altar,  and  the  only  ordinances  were  sacrifice  and 
prayer,  to  which,  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  was  added  circum- 
cision. But  the  wonderful  works  of  God  in  that  first  stage 
of  the  world's  history,  were  doubtless  abundant ;  although 
the  brief  outline  of  Scripture  mentions  but  a  ^ew.  The  judg- 
ment of  Cain,  the  translation  of  Enoch,  the  building  of  the 
ark,  and  the  miraculous  obedience  of  the  wild  beasts  enclosed 
in  it,  the  dreadful  deluge,  the  destruction  of  Babel,  the  confu- 
sion of  tongues,  the  conflagration  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrha, 
with  other  miraculous  events,  formed  no  part  of  the  system 
which  we  call  patriarchal,  but  were  occasional  exhibitions  of 
the  tremendous  power  of  God,  granted  in  order  to  awaken 


EXAMINED.  273 

men  from  their  awful  lethargy,  and  lead  them  to  seek  the 
truth,  which  could  alone  make  them  wise  unto  salvation. 

The  same  distinction  is  plainly  shown,  in  the  second,  or  the 
Mosaic  dispensation.  The  wonders  that  attended  its  first 
establishment  were  stupendous,  for  not  only  Egypt  and  the 
surrounding  nations,  but  Israel  also  was  sunk  in  idolatry,  and 
needed  the  manifestation  of  all  these  wonders,  to  convince 
them,  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  the  only  living  and  true  God, 
whose  was  the  kingdom,  the  power,  and  the  glory.  The 
system  as  now  instituted,  had  the  immense  superiority  of  a 
written  record  of  the  divine  Word,  instead  of  the  former 
uncertain  oral  tradition ;  together  with  a  special  tribe  and 
family  for  the  priesthood,  and  a  magnificent  tabernacle  for  the 
worship  of  God,  and  a  multitude  of  ceremonial  rites,  full  of 
a  spiritual  meaning,  and  calculated  to  prepare  the  Jewish 
people,  and  through  them,  the  world,  for  the  still  distant  day 
of  the  promised  Messiah.  After  the  system  was  perfectly 
established,  the  wonders  ceased;  although  we  find  them  par- 
tially and  rarely  recurring,  the  most  remarkable  period  of 
miracles  being  allotted  to  the  ten  tribes,  during  the  ministry  of 
Elijah  and  Elisha.  These  ten  tribes,  you  remember,  had  sepa- 
rated from  Judah  and  Benjamin.  They  thus  deprived  them- 
selves of  the  advantages  which  belonged  to  the  regular  system, 
and  fell  into  awful  idolatry ;  and  we  may  reverently  imagine 
that  this  may  have  been  in  part  the  reason,  why  they  had  so 
much  more  of  the  extraordinary  manifestations  of  divine 
power,  because,  being  destitute  of  the  authorized  priesthood 
and  tabernacle,  their  deplorable  condition  needed  them  so 
greatly. 

Precisely  on  the  same  principle,  the  Christian  dispensation 
was  established  in  the  midst  of  wonders,  commanding,  as 
before,  the  assent  and  obedience  of  mankind  to  the  system  of 
the  Church.  And  now  the  ordinances  of  circumcision  and 
sacrifice  were  changed  into  baptism  and  the  holy  eucharist,  the 


274  THE    ROMAN    ARGUMENT    EXAMINED. 

restriction  of  the  priesthood  was  removed,  and  the  office  was 
put  under  a  spiritual  law  suited  to  all  families  and  all  nations; 
to  the  written  revelations  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  added 
the  inspired  histories,  epistles  and  prophecies  of  the  New ;  Jew 
and  Gentile  found  the  partition  wall  broken  down  from  be- 
tween them;  and  from  the  elementary  rudiments  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  was  produced  the  finished  and  complete  system 
of  the  Gospel. 

And  here,  by  the  way,  brethren,  from  the  Saviour's  com- 
parison of  the  various  developments  of  his  Church,  to  the 
growth  of  the  wheat,  we  may  learn  the  character  and  value 
of  religious  forms  and  ordinances.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
after  our  world  has  accomplished  its  present  course,  these 
forms  and  ordinances  will  give  place  to  a  still  more  spiritual 
system.  It  is  equally  true,  that  even  here,  if  taken  by  them- 
selves, they  are  of  no  more  importance  than  the  chaff  which 
is  separated  from  the  grain  in  the  threshing-floor.  But  while 
the  Church  is  still  on  earth,  still  growing  and  ripening  for  the 
heavenly  harvest,  she  can  no  more  attain  her  proper  maturity 
without  forms  and  ordinances,  than  the  grain  in  the  ear  can 
grow  without  its  husks.  They  may  be  counted  as  chaff  by 
and  by,  but  in  our  present  state  they  are  an  indispensable  part 
of  the  divine  system. 

But  this  is  a  digression,  for  which  I  should  crave  your 
pardon.  Let  us  recur  to  the  main  argument,  in  which  I  de- 
signed to  explain  clearly  the  difference,  between  the  systems 
which  the  Lord  had  mercifully  granted  to  mankind,  and  the 
wonders  which  were  performed  in  the  establishment  of  those 
systems.  For  nothing  is  more  necessary  to  a  clear  idea  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  error,  in  this  and  many  other  points,  than 
a  just  apprehension  of  the  fundamental  distinction,  which  I 
have  been  endeavouring  to  explain.  And  you  will  readily  see 
its  importance,  when  we  come  to  apply  it  to  the  cases  recorded 
in  the  sacred  history. 


THE  BRAZEN  SERPENT.  275 

You  remember,  for  instance,  the  marvellous  occurrence 
which  took  place  during  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through 
the  wilderness,  when  a  brazen  serpent  was  made  by  the  divine 
command,  and  put  upon  a  pole,  and  every  one  that  looked  on 
it  was  healed  of  the  bite  of  the  fiery  flying  serpents.  Now  we 
find  that  this  very  image  was  carefully  preserved  until  the 
days  of  the  good  king  Hezekiah,  who  broke  it  to  pieces,  be- 
cause the  children  of  Israel  burnt  incense  to  it.  And  he  called 
its  name  Nehushtan,  (4  Kings  xviii.  4)  which  signifies,  a  piece 
of  brass.  Why  did  the  pious  monarch  condemn  the  conduct 
of  the  people,  and  destroy  the  image?  Because  its  history 
belonged,  not  to  the  system  of  religious  truth,  but  only  to  the 
wonderful  events  by  which  that  system  was  established.  He- 
zekiah drew  the  distinction  well  and  wisely.  The  works  of 
God  were  to  be  reverenced  as  He  would  have  them  reverenced, 
and  not  in  some  other  way  of  man's  devising.  And  the  system 
of  God's  truth  is  to  be  preserved  as  he  has  delivered  it,  and 
not  to  be  either  enlarged  or  diminished,  to  humour  human  in- 
difl^erence,  or  human  superstition.  And  therefore  when  the 
people  took  the  brazen  serpent,  which  belonged  to  the  miracu- 
lous establishment  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  into  the  forms 
of  worship  which  belonged  to  the  system  itself  they  sinned 
grievously,  and  the  king  did  most  rightly  in  taking  the  temp- 
tation away. 

The  same  principle,  brethren,  will  apply  to  the  case  which 
Dr.  Wiseman  has  brought  forward,  as  a  justification  for  the 
relic-worship  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  "Eliseus,"  (or,  as  we 
usually  call  him,  Elisha,)  "died,  and  they  buried  him,  and  the 
rovers  from  Moab  came  into  the  land  the  same  year.  And 
some  that  were  burying  a  man,  saw  the  rovers,  and  cast  the 
body  into  the  sepulchre  of  Eliseus,  and  when  it  had  touched 
the  bones  of  Eliseus,  the  man  came  to  life,  and  stood  on  his 
feet."  (4  Kings  xiii.  20,  21.)  The  uses  of  this  miracle  we 
are  not  told.     How  far  it  instructed  Israel  and  even  Moab, 


276  THE  BONES  OF  ELISHA. 

and  tended  to  bring  them  to  the  knowledge  and  worship  of  the 
true  God — how  'far  it  stopped  the  predatory  warfare  carried  on 
at  that  very  time,  or  in  how  many  various  w^ays  it  might  have 
been  eminently  beneficial — it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  say. 
But  it  is  certain  that  the  fact  belonged  to  the  ivonders  of  their 
history,  and  not  to  the  system  of  their  religion,  just  as  in  the 
case  of  the  brazen  serpent.  And  hence  they  suffered  the  body 
of  the  prophet  to  continue  as  before,  without  worshipping  his 
relics,  or  appearing  to  look  upon  it  in  any  other  light  than  as  a 
solitary  miracle,  such  as  had  never  taken  place  previously,  and 
might  never  take  place  again.  Had  the  Israelites  in  those 
days  regarded  it  in  the  same  light  as  the  modern  Church  of 
Rome,  they  would  have  inscribed  the  prophet's  name  in  the 
calendar  to  be  worshipped,  set  a  day  apart  in  his  honour,  en- 
shrined his  relics  in  gold  and  silver,  given  them  a  place  in  their 
temple,  pronounced  an  anathema  against  every  one  who  re- 
fused to  do  them  reverence,  and  looked  to  them  as  one  of  the 
regular  parts  of  the  divine  institution,  for  the  healing  of  dis- 
eases, raising  the  dead,  and  every  other  miraculous  instrumen- 
tality. But  nothing  of  the  kind  was  done.  There  were  no 
relics  known  to  the  Jewish  system.  And  therefore,  in  our  Sa- 
viour's time,  the  Pharisees  showed  their  ostentatious  piety,  by 
adorning  the  sepulchres  and  tombs  of  the  prophets;  but  rijling 
them  of  their  contents,  and  converting  the  mouldering  hones 
into  objects  of  worship,  was  reserved  for  the  wayward  super- 
stition of  a  far  later  day. 

I  come  next,  however,  to  the  examples  which  our  ingenious 
author  presents  to  us  from  the  New  Testament;  where  the 
woman  was  healed  of  a  hoemorrhage  by  touching  the  hem  of 
the  Saviour's  garment ;  and  handkerchiefs,  taken  from  the  body 
of  St.  Paul,  cured  the  sick.  And  here,  brethren,  I  marvel 
greatly  to  find  Dr.  Wiseman  asserting,  that  in  the  first  of 
these  cases  there  was  "no  exercise  of  the  Saviour'' s  will.'''' 
Where  did  he  make  that  discovery?  Even  his  own  theory  does 


SUMMARY    OF    SCRIPTURE.  277 

not  regard  the  relics  of  the  saints  as  instrumental  in  doing 
wonders  by  any  inherent  efficacy,  but  only  on  the  ground  that 
it  pleased  God  to  use  them  for  such  purpose.  Surely,  there- 
fore, it  is  highly  presumptuous  in  any  one  to  say,  that  when 
the  woman  touched  the  Saviour's  garment,  her  cure  was  with- 
out any  exercise  of  his  will.  He  who  knew  all  things,  even 
the  secret  thoughts  of  every  heart,  must  have  known  the  whole 
circumstances  and  have  willed  the  result,  else  his  own  doctrine 
would  be  strangely  falsified,  that  "even  the  sparrow  doth  not 
fall  to  the  ground  without  our  heavenly  Father." 

But  in  all  these  cases,  the  distinction  applies.  These  mira- 
cles belonged  to  the  iconders  which  attended  the  history  of 
the  Gospel  dispensation  in  its  establishment;  and  were  no  more 
intended  to  belong  to  its  regular  system  than  the  brazen 
serpent,  or  the  case  of  Elisha's  bones,  or  any  of  the  mighty 
works  of  God  in  ancient  Israel,  were  intended  to  belong  to  the 
regular  system  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  The  touching  of 
our  Saviour's  garments,  therefore,  did  wonders,  ivhen  he 
pleased  to  have  the  wonders  done,  and  at  no  other  season. 
We  do  not  read  of  their  being  adopted  as  a  part  of  the  regular 
ordinances  of  God,  neither  do  we  find  those  garments  working 
miracles  after  the  soldiers  had  stripped  them  from  his  sacred 
body.  And  so,  likewise,  in  the  case  of  the  handkerchiefs 
which  were  taken  from  the  person  of  St.  Paul,  it  is  probable 
that  his  prayers  accompanied  their  application ;  and  that  apart 
from  this,  they  would  have  had  no  efficacy  whatever.  But 
had  it  been  a  part  of  the  divine  system,  that  such  things  should 
be  held  in  honour  by  the  Church  for  ever,  and  be  laid  up  and 
reverenced  as  the  regular  instruments  by  which  health,  and 
deliverance,  and  blessings  innumerable  should  be  dispensed  to 
the  end  of  the  world,  we  should  -surely  have  had  the  apostles 
making  presents  to  the  Churches  of  their  garments  as  well  as 
their  epistles;  and  instead  of  St.  Stephen,  the  first  martyr, 
being  carried  by  devout  men  to  his  burial,  we  should  read 

2b 


278  SUMMARY    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

of  his  being  embalmed  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  his  relics, 
and  every  article  belonging  to  his  person,  down  to  the  shoe 
latchet,  would  have  been  distributed  by  the  order  of  St.  Peter 
with  as  much  care  as  the  popes,  who  call  themselves  his  suc- 
cessors, employ,  when  they  send  presents  of  much  meaner 
relics  than  those  of  St.  Stephen,  in  our  own  day.  If  then  it  be 
admitted,  as  it  must  needs  be,  that  the  duty  of  the  Church  is  to 
be  regulated  by  the  precepts  and  example  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  neither  precept  nor  example  can  be  found  for  the 
veneration  of  relics,  it  manifestly  results,  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  has  incurred  an  awful  hazard  by  her  decrees  in  behalf 
of  such  a  doctrine,  and  especially  by  pronouncing  her  anathe- 
mas on  all  who  differ  from  her.  I  shall  only  observe,  in  con- 
cluding this  branch  of  our  subject,  that  Dr.  Wiseman  has  taken 
a  most  unwarrantable  liberty  with  the  meaning  of  words,  where 
he  says,  that  at  the  time  the  miracles  were  wrought  by  the 
garments  of  Christ  and  the  handkerchiefs  of  St.  Paul,  they 
were  "relics  in  the  Catholic  sense  of  the  term.^^  They  were 
not  relics  at  all,  during  the  life  of  their  respective  wearers,  and 
yet  it  was  only  during  their  life,  and  doubtless,  by  their  desire, 
that  the  miracles  were  effected.  But  in  order  to  entitle  them 
to  the  appellation  of  relics,  they  must  be  taken  after  the  death 
of  the  former  wearers,  for  the  word  relic  comes  from  relicta, 
signifying  what  is  left  behind,  and  therefore  it  is  never  applied 
by  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the  garments  of  any  saint,  while  he 
is  yet  in  being.  Hence  it  results,  that  there  is  no  example  in 
Scripture  of  the  case  which  Dr.  Wiseman's  doctrine  requires, 
namely,  of  a  miracle  being  effected  by  the  garments  or  other 
things  which  had  belonged  to  a  deceased  saint,  after  the  de- 
cease of  the  owner.  The  single  instance  which  can  properly 
be  called  a  miracle  by  relics,  is  that  of  Elisha;  and  the  argu- 
ment already  delivered  on  that  instance  is  sufficient,  I  trust,  to 
show,  that  it  is  directly  hostile  to  the  doctrine  for  which  it  is 
cited. 


THE    WORSHIP    OF    IMAGES.  279 

On  the  other  point  of  controversy,  namely,  the  worship  of 
images,  our  author  seems  to  give  up  the  Scriptural  argument 
altogether.  He  tells  us,  indeed,  that  the  mere  making  of  them 
cannot  be  unlawful,  because  the  Lord  commanded  them  to  be 
placed  on  the  ark,  and  in  the  tabernacle;  and  he  grants  that 
they  ought  not  to  be  made  for  adoration  or  worship.  "And 
the  question,"  saith  he,  "is  therefore  whether  the  Roman 
Catholic  is  justified  in  praying  before  them,  and  using  them  as 
memorials,  inspiring  faith  and  devotion."  "I  may  be  asked," 
continues  our  author,  "  what  warrant  there  is  in  Scripture  for 
all  this.  I  might  answer  that  I  ask  none,  for  rather  I  might 
ask  what  authority  there  is  to  deprive  me  of  these  objects? 
because  it  is  the  natural  right  of  man  to  use  any  thing  towards 
promoting  the  worship  of  God,  which  is  not  in  any  way 
forbidden." 

Now  here,  brethren,  is  the  direct  avowal  of  a  most  corrupt 
principle,  sufficient  of  itself  to  sanction  a  thousand  follies  and 
superstitions,  and,  as  it  appears  to  me,  utterly  unsustained  by 
any  argument,  either  of  faith  or  reason.  I  refer  to  Dr.  Wise- 
man's assertion  that  it  is  the  natural  right  of  man  to  use  any 
thing  he  pleases  in  the  worship  of  God,  provided  it  be  not  for- 
bidden. For  what  natural  rights  have  we,  where  the  wor- 
ship of  God  is  concerned?  We  are  utterly  condemned,  as  sin- 
ners, by  nature  and  by  practice,  and  all  our  rights  in  religion 
are  conferred  not  by  nature^  hut  by  grace,  and  must  therefore 
be  regulated  by  his  Word,  and  not  by  our  imagination.  A 
similar  error,  although  exhibited  in  a  different  way,  was  that 
of  the  Pharisees,  who  added  an  immense  number  of  tradition- 
ary observances  to  the  divine  law,  intending  thereby  to  increase 
their  devotion.  But  listen  to  the  judgment  of  Christ  concern- 
ing them:  "In  vain  do  they  worship  me,"  said  the  Saviour, 
"  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men." 

In  the  next  place,  however,  it  seems  to  my  mind  that  our 
author's  own  concesssion  utterly  disproves  his  Church's  doc- 


280  ROMAN    ARGUMENT    DISPROVED. 

trine.  For  while  he  contends  that  the  mere  making  of  images 
cannot  be  sinful ;  since  the  Lord  himself  commanded  the  figures 
of  cherubim  to  be  placed  in  his  temple  ;  he  nevertheless  grants, 
expressly,  that  images  ought  not  to  be  madeybr  adoration  or 
worship.  But  what  then,  I  would  ask  Dr.  Wiseman,  are  those 
acts  which  the  councils  order  in  honour  of  images?  The  un- 
covering the  head,  the  falling  prostrate,  the  kisses  of  devout 
affection,  the  burning  of  incense,  and  the  lighting  of  candles 
before  the  holy  images,  as  the  second  Council  of  Nice  constantly 
calls  them — what  are  all  these,  if  they  be  not  acts  of  worship? 
In  the  case  of  the  brazen  serpent,  we  only  read  of  the  people 
burning  incense  to  it,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  commentators 
admit  that  this  was  an  act  of  idolatry  which  justified  king 
Hezekiah  in  destroying  it.  But  here  we  have  the  kisses,  the 
incense,  the  lighting  of  candles,  and  prostration,  all  together. 
And  besides  this,  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the  express 
words  of  that  very  council,  decreeing  that  "the  honour  of  the 
image  passes  to  its  original,  and  whoever  adores  the  image, 
adores  in  it,  the  substance  of  the  representation?"  It  is  not 
possible,  brethren,  to  reconcile  all  this  with  the  principle  ad- 
mitted by  Dr.  Wiseman.  The  true  meaning  of  it,  however,  is 
well  expressed  by  a  far  greater  authority  in  the  Roman  Church 
than  any  living  man,  namely,  the  famous  Thomas  Aquinas, 
whom  they  call  the  angelical  Doctor,  and  who  stands  on  their 
Calendar  as  a  canonized  saint.  For  he  says  expressly,  that 
"as  Christ  himself  is  adored  with  the  highest  worship,  (latria) 
so  his  image  is  to  be  adored  with  the  same."  (Th.  Aquin. 
Sum.  Theol.  Par.  3.  Qusestio  25.  Art.  3.  p.  53.)  He  gives 
the  very  same  decision  as  to  the  worship  of  the  cross,  that 
"because  Christ  was  suspended  on  it,  and  he  stained  it  with  his 
precious  blood,  therefore  not  only  the  original  cross,  but  every 
image  of  it,  no  matter  of  what  material,  should  be  adored  with 
the  same  kind  of  worship,  which  is  due  to  Christ  himself." 
(lb.  Art.  4.)     It  seems  a  mere  trifling  with  language,  therefore. 


LACTANTIUS    AND    ORIGEN.  281 

to  deny  that  worship  is  expressly  ordered  by  the  Church  of 
Rome,  to  images; — the  highest  worship,  which  they  call  la- 
tria,  to  the  images  of  Christ  and  the  cross;  and  to  the  images 
of  the  saints,  the  worship  which  they  call  dulia;  namely,  the 
same  sort  of  worship  which  they  render  to  the  saints  them- 
selves. What  that  is,  we  saw  sufficiently,  brethren,  in  our 
last  lecture. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  other  authorities  of  our  learned 
advocate,  I  have  next  to  set  before  you  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers,  which  will  satisfy  you  that  an  ample  number  of  wit- 
nesses may  be  appealed  to,  in  proof  that  these  doctrines  could 
never  have  been  approved  by  the  primitive  Church. 

Thus,  for  example,  Lactantius  writes,  A.  D.  320  :  "There 
is  no  religion  wherever  there  is  an  image.  For  if  religion 
consists  in  divine  things,  and  there  is  nothing  divine  but  in 
heavenly  things;  images,  therefore,  are  without  religion,  for 
there  can  be  nothing  heavenly  in  that  which  is  earthly." 
(Finch,  232.) 

About  a  century  earlier,  the  celebrated  Origen  saith :  "Who 
in  his  senses  would  not  smile  to  see  a  man,  after  his  brilliant 
and  philosophical  disputations  upon  God,  or  upon  the  gods, 
turn  his  eyes  to  statues,  and  either  offer  prayers  to  them,  or 
endeavour  hy  contemplating  them,  as  some  conspicuous  sign, 
to  raise  his  mind  to  the  conception  of  the  intelligent  DeityJ''' 
(lb.  188.) 

And  again:  "Christians  and  Jews,"  saith  Origen,  "refrain 
from  these  on  account  of  that  precept  of  the  law,  '  Thou  shalt 
fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.'  Also 
upon  account  of  that  commandment,  'Thou  shalt  have  none 
other  gods  but  me ;  thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  an  image, 
or  the  likeness  of  those  things  that  are  in  heaven  or  on  earth ;' 
which  so  prohibits  to  us  altars  and  images,  that  we  ought  to 
die  rather  than  contaminate  our  faith  to  God  with  such  im- 
pieties.^''    (lb.) 

2  b2 


282  EARLY    COUNCILS    AND    FATHERS. 

And  again:  "The  images  that  are  to  be  dedicated  to  God, 
are  not  the  works  of  artists,  but  what  are  wrought  and  formed 
within  us  by  the  Word  of  God,  namely,  virtues  in  imitation  of 
HIM  who  was  the  Jirst-horn  of  every  creatitre.^^     (lb.) 

The  next  testimony,  brethren,  is  taken  from  the  Council  of 
Eliberis  in  Spain,  held  about  the  year  300,  which  resolved  as 
follows : 

*'  It  seemed  good  to  us  that  pictures  ought  not  to  be  in  the 
Churches,  lest  that  which  is  worshipped  or  adored,  be  paint- 
ed upon  the  walW     (lb.  256.) 

Again,  the  eminent  Epiphanius,  A.  D.  366,  writes  thus,  in  a 
letter  which  Jerome  translated,  and  doubtless,  therefore,  fully 
approved.  Speaking  of  his  visit  to  a  certain  Church :  "  I  found 
there,"  saith  he,  "a  veil  hanging  at  the  door  of  the  Church, 
dyed  and  painted,  and  having  the  image  as  it  were  of  Christ  or 
of  some  saint;  for  I  do  not  rightly  recollect  whose  image  it 
was.  When,  therefore,  I  saw,  that  contrary  to  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  the  image  of  a  man  was  hung  up  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,  I  cut  it,  and  counselled  the  guardians  of  the 
place  that  they  should  rather  use  it  as  a  winding  sheet  for 
some  poor  man's  burial."     (lb.  244.) 

In  like  maner,  St.  Augustin  saith;  "This  is  the  chief  cause 
of  this  mad  impiety,  that  a  figure  resembling  a  living  form 
operates  more  forcibly  upon  the  feelings  of  these  wretched  men, 
than  its  being  manifest  that  it  is  not  living,  and  therefore  that 
it  ought  to  be  despised  by  the  living.'''     (lb.  158.) 

Lastly,  St.  Ambrose,  the  preceptor  of  Augustin,  saith,  "Ra- 
chel hid  the  sacred  images,  signifying  the  Church,  or  prudence, 
because  the  Church  knows  nothing  of  these  empty  ideas  and 
vain  figures  of  images,  but  acknowledges  the  true  substance 
of  the  Trinity."     (Tom.  I.  p.  429.  §  27.) 

We  see  here,  brethren,  sufficient  proof,  that  the  worship  of 
images  was  a  complete  innovation  upon  the  early  and  purer 
doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church,  although,  after  many  violen 


MODERN    STATE    OP    THE    DOCTRINE.  283 

Struggles,  it  finally  gained  the  ascendency,  and  was  established 
about  700  years  after  the  sacrifice  of  the  Redeemer,  in  the  se- 
cond Council  of  Nice,  whose  decrees  have  been  cited. 

The  other  corruption,  respecting  ihe  worship  of  relics  and 
the  cross,  appears  to  have  had  its  first  rise  in  the  veneration 
with  which  the  martyrs  were  regarded.  It  became  a  custom 
for  Christians  to  hold  a  yearly  service  at  their  tombs  or  sepul- 
chres, on  the  day  of  their  martyrdom,  which  was  called  their 
birth-day,  (natalitia)  because  it  was  believed  that  they  then 
entered  into  heavenly  glory.  When  the  Gospel  of  Christ  be- 
came the  established  religion  of  the  Roman  empire,  Churches 
\wQi:e  built  over  these  tombs  or  sepulchres  wherever  it  was 
convenient;  and  where  it  was  not,  the  remains  of  the  martyrs 
were  transferred  to  the  altar  of  the  new  edifice,  and  their  day 
was  kept  with  more  pomp  and  solemnity  than  ever;  discourses 
being  pronounced  annually  in  their  praise,  which  led  to  a  very 
pernicious  display  of  laudatory  exaggeration.  From  praying 
for  tliem,  the  Church  next  began  to  pray  to  them;  and  as  the 
influence  of  superstition,  once  excited  and  approved,  never  fails 
to  increase  with  vast  rapidity,  the  reports  of  miracles  per- 
formed by  their  means,  and  the  rivalry  between  the  altars  of 
different  Churches,  produced  a  constant  effort  to  exalt  the  vahie 
of  relics  and  the  merits  of  the  saints,  until  it  reached  the  high- 
est extravagance.  The  extent  to  which  it  is  carried  in  Roman 
Catholic  countries,  even  at  this  day,  must  be  witnessed  before 
it  can  be  believed ;  but  a  few  extracts  from  the  Breviary  and 
other  books  of  authority,  may  give  you  some  idea  of  it. 

Thus,  in  the  lesson  appointed  to  be  read  on  the  Festival  of 
St.  Isidore,  we  find  the  following  passage:  "  His  body,  which 
was  at  first  laid,  according  to  his  own  injunctions,  between  his 
brother  Leander  and  his  sister  Florentine,  was  afterwards 
translated  to  Leon  by  Ferdinand  I.,  king  of  Castile  and  Leon, 
who  purchased  it  at  a  great  price  from  Henetus,  the  Saracen, 
then  reigning  in  Seville.     A  temple  was  forthwith  built  in  his 


284  ROMAN    STATEMENTS 

honour,  and  there,  distinguished  by  his  miracles,  he  is  vene- 
rated by  the  people  with  great  devotion."  (Finch,  Supple- 
ment, p.  196.) 

Of  St.  Ubald,  the  same  infallible  authority  relates,  that  "his 
body,  which  remains  uncorrupted  after  so  many  ages,  is  ho- 
noured with  the  great  veneration  of  the  faithful  in  his  country, 
which  he  has  more  than  once  delivered  from  imminent  dan- 
ger:'    (lb.  196.) 

Of  St.  Januarius,  the  Breviary  declares  as  follows:  "The 
Neapolitans,  admonished  by  the  Lord,  carried  away  the  body 
of  St.  Januarius,  which  being  first  conveyed  to  Benevento, 
thence  to  the  monastery  of  the  Virgin's  Mount,  and  lastly 
transferred  to  Naples,  and  placed  in  the  principal  Church, 
was  renowned  for  many  miracles.  But  the  miracle  which  is 
chiefly  to  be  commemorated  is,  that  it  formerly  extinguished 
volumes  of  flames  breaking  forth  from  Mount  Vesuvius,  and 
diffusing  the  fear  of  devastation  not  only  in  the  neighbourhood 
but  even  in  distant  regions.  This  also  is  remarkable,  that  his 
blood,  which  is  preserved  coagulated  in  a  glass  vial,  when  it 
is  placed  in  sight  of  the  head  of  the  same  martyr,  is  even  at 
the  present  day  seen  to  liquefy  and  boil  in  a  wonderful  man- 
ner, as  if  it  were  only  recently  shed."     (lb.  200.) 

Of  St.  Francis  Xavier,  the  same  Breviary  saith,  that  "his 
body,  twice  covered  over  with  quick-lime  for  several  months, 
but  quite  uncorrupted,  exuded  sweet  odour  and  blood;  and 
when  it  was  carried  to  the  Malaccas,  it  immediately  extin- 
guished a  fierce  pestilence.^'     (lb.  202.) 

Of  St.  Peter  Chrysologus,  we  read,  that  "his  sacred  body 
is  even  to  this  day  religiously  venerated,  but  one  of  his  arms, 
being  ornamented  with  gold  and  gems,  and  carried  to  Raven- 
na, is  venerated  in  the  Ursian  Church."     (lb.) 

And  of  St.  Andrew  Corsini  it  is  said,  in  the  same  book,  that 
"his  body  reposes  at  Florence  in  the  Church  of  his  order,  and 
is  reverenced  with  the  greatest  veneration  of  the  citizens,  to 


SINCE    THE    REFORMATION.  285 

whom,  more  than  once,  it  has  been  a  protection  in  imminent 
danger:'     ([b.  204.) 

These  ^iiw  specimens,  brethren,  are  taken  from  the  standard 
devotional  book  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  called  the  Breviary; 
and  show  distinctly  the  religious  veneration  rendered,  and  the 
extraordinary  miracles  attributed  to  the  relics  of  the  saints. 
The  wonderful  appearances  related  of  images,  pictures,  cross- 
es, &c.,  would  quite  exceed  my  limits  and  your  patience.  But 
it  is  necessary  to  add,  that  the  intelligence  of  the  age  has 
made  no  difference  in  these  superstitions,  wherever  the  autho- 
rity of  Rome  is  supreme.  Thus,  for  example,  since  the%ear 
1790,  publications  have  been  made  of  the  miraculous  image  of 
the  virgin  at  Ancona,  opening  and  shutting  its  eyes  on  public 
occasions.  In  consideration  of  which  miracle,  the  pope  insti- 
tuted a  pious  fraternity  in  honour  of  the  image,  under  the 
name  of  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Mary.  The  opening,  and 
shutting,  and  turning  of  the  eyes  of  the  image,  still  continuing, 
at  intervals,  for  some  years,  Pius  VII.,  in  person,  crowned  the 
miraculous  image  on  the  13th  of  May,  1814,  fixed  the  annual 
feast  in  its  honour  for  the  second  Sunday  of  the  same  month, 
and  attached  to  it  the  power  of  a  plenary  indulgence,  (Phil- 
pot's  Let.  to  Butler,  Supp.  402,  3.) 

At  Torricella,  about  the  same  time,  we  are  gravely  assured 
that  a  torrent  of  tears  was  shed  by  a  wooden  image  of  the  vir- 
gin. And  at  Ancona,  a  picture  representing  St.  Anne  teach- 
ing the  virgin  Mary  to  read,  was  seen  to  be  animated,  so  that 
the  two  faces  turned  their  eyes  towards  the  spectators.  (lb. 
p.  411.)  But  at  Mercatello,  a  still  more  wonderful  occur- 
rence was  said  to  have  taken  place.  "A  very  ancient  pic- 
ture of  the  virgin  and  child  was  there,  on  an  altar  in  the  Col- 
legiate Church;  when  it  was  observed  that  the  countenance 
assumed  a  brilliant  tint,  the  eyes  became  lively,  and  the  fea- 
tures, which  had  become  almost  effaced,  again  became  dis- 
tinctly visible.     The  countenance  of  the  infant  Jesus,  which 


286         INFLUENCE  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

the  mother  held  in  her  arms,  changed  colour;  and  several 
times  was  the  divine  infant  seen  to  bend  towards  the  glass 
which  covered  the  picture,  to  signify,  as  it  were,  how  accept- 
able was  the  devotion  of  the  pious  multitude  that  was  present 
at  the  spectacle."     (lb.  p.  411.) 

In  Roman  Catholic  countries,  there  seems  to  be  no  end  to 
these  marvellous  tales,  nor  has  the  long-cherished  confidence 
of  the  people,  in  images  and  relics,  become  at  all  lessened. 
But  it  is  said  that  there  are  many  minds  of  superior  culture 
amongst  them,  who  look  down  upon  all  this  as  a  collection  of 
absift-dilies,  which  they  tolerate  only  because  they  see  no  way 
of  breaking  it  down,  without  destroying  all  respect  for  rehgion 
along  with  it.  How  far  this  assertion  is  true,  we  have  no 
means  of  ascertaining ;  but  it  is  manifest,  that  in  those  coun- 
tries where  the  Reformation  has  taken  root,  the  champions  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  like  Dr.  Wiseman,  pass  over  the  whole 
of  the  subject  in  terms  as  general  and  slight  as  possible,  and 
plainly  show,  that  if  it  were  practicable,  they  would  gladly 
consign  it  to  oblivion. 

Let  me  now,  brethren,  in  conclusion,  ask  how  far  we  have 
discharged  our  own  Christian  duty  in  this  matter — how  far 
have  we  laboured  to  promote  the  salutary  influence  of  Scrip- 
tural truth,  amongst  the  multitudes  who  are  in  bondage  to  this 
yoke  of  superstition  ?  Have  we  thought  of  them  with  kind- 
ness and  good  will — prayed  for  them  with  zeal  and  earnest- 
ness— and  been  careful  to  recommend  our  own  purer  system 
of  Gospel  truth,  by  a  life  of  higher  morality  and  more  fervent 
devotion? 

It  is  an  age  of  effort  for  the  cause  of  missions,  and  immense 
works  are  undertaken,  and  prosecuted  with  ardour,  for  the 
conversion  of  the  distant  heathen.  Nor  is  it  often,  I  trust, 
that  the  ministers  of  Christ,  amongst  the  various  Protestant 
Churches,  ofTer  up  their  public  supplications  to  the  throne  of 
grace,  without  remembering  the  condition  of  those  benighted 


THE    DUTY    OF    PROTESTANTS.  287 

nations  who  are  still  sitting  in  the  region  and  shadow  of  death. 
And  this  is  all  right,  assuredly  ;  for  it  well  becomes  the  fol- 
lower of  Christ,  who  knows  that  He  died  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  to  be  constantly  mindful  of  his  blessed  purpose, 
that  the  Gospel  should  be  preached  to  every  creature. 

But  brethren,  I  beseech  you  to  say,  whether  the  unity  and 
well-being  of  the  Church  of  God  is  not  still  more  imperatively 
the  object  of  our  labours  and  our  prayers.  And  believing  that 
wherever  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  creed  are 
held,  there  must  be  a  portion  of  that  Church — believing  there- 
fore, that  the  Church  of  Greece,  although  greatly  corrupted, 
is  a  branch  of  the  Church  Universal — that  the  Churches  of 
Abyssinia,  and  Armenia,  and  Syria,  are  likewise  branches  of 
the  same — that  the  Church  of  Rome,  although  the  most  cor- 
rupted of  them  all,  is  a  most  extensive  and  important  part  of 
the  same  Church  Catholic  or  Universal ;  and  that  we  are  con- 
sequently bound  to  acknowledge  them  as  members  of  the  great 
family  of  Christ — are  we  at  liberty  to  feel  indifferent  to  their 
errors,  to  forget  their  dangers,  to  look  upon  them  with  ridicule 
or  contempt,  or  to  discharge  ourselves  of  all  responsibility  with 
regard  to  them,  as  if  we  were  quite  sure  that  not  the  'Reforma- 
tion^ but  the  destruction  of  that  Church,  is  the  proper  object  of 
our  hopes,  and  that  to  pray  for  them,  or  labour  in  order  to 
convince  them  of  their  errors,  forms  no  part  of  our  Christian 
duty? 

Let  us  acknowledge,  in  humility,  before  the  great  Searcher 
of  hearts,  my  brethren,  that  we  are  guilty  in  this  thing.  True, 
we  may  have  nothing  in  our  power.  True,  our  lectures,  and 
our  kind  wishes,  and  our  prayers,  may  have  no  influence 
whatever.  But  what  then?  Was  it  not  good  for  the  apostle 
to  long  for  the  salvation  of  the  Jews,  since  they  were  his  bre- 
thren according  to  the  flesh,  although  they  had  rejected  and 
crucified  the  Lord  of  hfe  and  glory?  Nay,  did  not  his  fervent 
zeal  in  their  behalf  induce  him  to  say,  that  he  could  even  con- 


288  CONCLUSION. 

sent  to  be  accursed  after  the  manner  of  Christ,  that  is,  actually 
crucified,  if  he  could  thereby  become  the  means  of  their  salva- 
tion? How  much  more  should  we  feel  for  the  various  Churches 
of  Christ,  who  are  our  brethren  through  the  principles  of  that 
faith  which  we  hold  in  common?  If  they  have  added  the  cor- 
rupt doctrines  of  human  invention  to  the  sacred  articles  of  the 
eternal  Gospel — if  those  additions  be  full  of  impiety  and  peril — 
if  they  need  to  be  enlightened,  instructed,  and  led  back  to  the 
pure  fountains  of  unerring  truth,  and  to  the  primitive  Church 
of  which  they  once  formed  so  bright  a  portion — let  us  pray 
for  them,  with  something  like  the  spirit  of  the  apostle,  even  if 
we  fall  immeasurably  behind  him  in  zeal.  And  let  us  not 
doubt,  that  if  it  should  please  the  all-wise  and  all-powerful  God 
to  carry  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  into  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  through  her  extensive  instrumentahty,  into  the 
Church  of  Greece,  the  unity  of  Christendom  would  go  farther 
to  secure  the  conversion  of  the  heathen,  and  the  universal 
influence  of  holiness  and  virtue,  than  all  the  separate  efl?brts  of 
jarring  and  discordant  sects  can  ever  effect,  though  they  could 
be  multiplied  an  hundred-fold. 

But  no  more.  Our  next  subject,  brethren,  will  be  the  doc- 
trines of  purgatory  and  indulgences,  in  addition  to  which,  a 
{ew  lectures  more  will  bring  us,  I  trust,  to  the  close  of  the 
series.  May  the  blessing  of  the  King,  eternal,  immortal,  and 
invisible,  rest  upon  you;  and  may  his  Word  go  forth  in  its 
might,  conquering  and  to  conquer,  until  every  form  of  error  is 
banished  from  his  Universal  Church,  until  "the  heathen  shall 
be  given  to  him  for  his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  earth  for  his  possession." 


LECTURE  XIII. 


Luke  xvi.  22,  23. — And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  beggar  died,  and  he 
was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom.  And  the  rich 
man  also  died,  and  he  was  buried  in  hell.  And  lifting  up  his  eyes 
when  he  was  in  torments,  he  saw  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in 
his  bosom.     (Doway  version.) 


Amongst  all  those  doctrines  which  are  regarded  as  corrupt 
abuses  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  my  brethren,  there  are  none 
possessing  greater  interest,  and  none  of  higher  practical  im- 
portance to  their  system,  than  the  doctrines  of  purgatory, 
satisfaction,  and  indulgences.  To  understand  them  aright, 
will  require  more  than  ordinary  attention  from  those  who  have 
not  already  some  familiarity  with  the  controversy;  but  I  shall 
take  all  the  pains  in  my  power  to  make  my  statements  per- 
spicuous and  plain.  To  this  end,  I  shall  discuss  the  subject 
in  the  following  order :  first,  the  theoretical  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory; secondly,  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction;  thirdly,  the  doc- 
trine of  indulgences.  I  shall  next  examine  the  arguments 
adduced  from  Scripture  to  sustain  these  articles  of  their  creed, 
and  demonstrate,  as  I  trust,  their  utter  insufficiency.  The 
translation  used,  will  of  course  be  understood  to  be  their  own 
Doway  Bible,  and  their  doctrines  shall  be  stated  from  their 
own  books  of  authority. 

"  Five  receptacles  are  enumerated  for  the  disembodied  souls 
of  the  dead,"  saith  the  learned  author  who  finished  the  Theo- 
logical Summary  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  "  in   which  they  are 

2  c 


290  DOCTRINE    OF    PURGATORY. 

received  according  to  their  respective  states;  namely,  paradise, 
the  limbus  of  the  fathers,  purgatory,  hell,  and  the  limbus  of 
children."     (Sup.  3,  p.  269,  Art.  7.) 

"  These  abodes,"  saith  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  "  are  not  all  of  the  same  nature."  Gehenna,  the  bot- 
tomless pit,  or  what  is  strictly  called  hell,  "is  that  most  loath- 
some and  dark  prison  in  which  the  souls  of  the  damned  are 
buried  with  the  unclean  spirits  in  eternal  and  unextinguishable 
fire."  Next  is  "the  fire  of  purgatory,  in  which  the  souls  of 
just  men  are  cleansed  by  a  temporary  punishment,  in  order  to 
be  admitted  into  their  eternal  country,  into  which  nothing  de- 
filed entereth."     (Cat.  Trident,  p.  63.) 

And  this  punishment,  though  not  eternal,  is  by  fire,  which, 
saith  the  Church  of  Rome,  "is  painful  in  a  wondrous  degree; 
surpassing  every  punishment  which  any  one  ever  suffered  in  this 
life."  (Philpot's  Letters  to  Butler,  117.)  Here  then  we  see, 
that  purgatory  is  not  only  a  state,  but  a  place  of  punishment 
for  the  departed  soul :  that  the  punishment  is  hy  jire,  and  that 
it  exceeds  all  the  pains  known  or  ever  experienced  by  the 
body. 

It  is  to  be  especially  observed,  in  order  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  doctrine,  that  the  souls  thus  tormented  in  this 
purgatorial  fire,  are  not  the  souls  of  the  wicked,  for  they  are 
consigned  to  the  eternal  fire  of  hell ;  but  the  souls  of  pious 
persons.  The  Council  of  Trent  calls  them  "the  souls  of  truly 
penitent  and  justified  sinners ;"  and  the  Council  of  Florence 
pronounces  them  to  be  "the  souls  of  those  who,  having  truly 
repented,  die  in  the  love  of  God."  (Tb.)  You  will  not  under- 
stand, however,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  condemns  all  de- 
parted souls  to  this  purgatory.  For  persons  of  uncommon 
holiness,  especially  the  apostles,  martyrs,  confessors,  and  saints, 
are  placed,  according  to  their  doctrine,  immediately  in  heaven; 
and  made  participators  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  without  waiting 
for  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in  the  day  of  judgment.     But 


DOCTRINE    OF    SATISFACTION.  291 

these  form  a  comparative  few ;  so  that  the  great  mass  of  de- 
parted Christians  are  believed  by  them  to  be  necessarily  obHged 
to  spend  a  longer  or  a  shorter  period  in  the  dreadful  torments 
of  these  purgatorial  flames,  until  satisfaction  is  rendered  to  the 
justice  of  God  for  their  venial  sins,  as  well  as  for  the  temporal 
punishment  due  to  their  mortal  sins,  after  their  guilt  has  been 
absolved  and  forgiven. 

This  brings  us,  brethren,  to  the  doctrine  of  Satisfaction ;  a 
doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  out  of  which  is  con- 
structed the  marvellous  system  of  works  performed  by  the 
living  for  the  benefit  of  the  dead,  and  applied  to  them  in  certain 
forms  by  the  priests,  the  bishops,  and  the  saints,  but  most  ex- 
tensively by  the  popes  in  what  are  usually  termed  Indulgences. 

The  explanation  of  this  doctrine  I  shall  give  you  in  the 
words  of  Dr.  Wiseman: 

"We  believe,"  saith  he,  "that  upon  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
that  is,  after  the  remission  of  that  eternal  debt,  which  God,  in 
his  justice,  awards  to  transgressions  against  his  law,  he  has 
been  pleased  to  reserve  a  certain  degree  of  inferior  or  tempo- 
rary punishment,  appropriate  to  the  guilt  which  had  been  in- 
curred, and  it  is  on  this  part  of  the  punishment,  according  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine,  that  satisfaction  can  be  made  to 
God." — "  Herein  consists  that  self-sufficiency ,  that  poiver  of 
self-justification,  which  has  been  considered  sufficient  to  ac- 
count for  the  Roman  Catholic's  subjecting  himself  to  the  pain- 
ful work  of  repentance,  (or  rather  penance,)  imposed  upon 
him  by  his  religion."     (Vol.  II.  31.) 

"This,"  saith  our  author  a  little  farther  on,  "is  the  basis  of 
the  system  known  by  the  name  of  the  penitential  canons;  in 
which  those  who  had  transgressed  were  condemned  to  diiferent 
punishments,  according  to  the  measure  of  their  offences;  some 
being  obliged  to  lie  prostrate  for  a  certain  term  of  months  or 
years  before  the  doors  of  the  Church,  after  which  they  were  ad- 
mitted to  different  portions  of  the  divine  service ;  while  others 


292  DOCTRINE    OF    INDULGENCES. 

were  often  excluded  through  their  whole  lives  from  the  liturgi- 
cal exercises  of  the  faithful,  and  were  not  admitted  to  absolution 
until  they  were  at  the  point  of  death." — "And  what  is  all  this," 
asks  Dr.  Wiseman,  "but  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  the 
belief  in  the  power  of  man  to  make  some  reparation  or  atone- 
ment to  God,  hy  his  own  voluntary  sufferings?''''  Mark  this, 
brethren,  I  beseech  you,  because  it  is  a  clear  avowal  of  the 
principle,  which  is  elsewhere  ingeniously  concealed.  We 
shall  show,  I  trust,  the  utterly  dangerous  and  unscriptural  na- 
ture of  this  principle  by  and  by:  but  we  wish  you,  meanwhile, 
to  carry  it  in  your  memory,  as  the  fundamental  error  which 
supports  the  whole.  And  we  shall  now  proceed  to  the  mode, 
in  which,  according  to  our  author,  this  is  applied  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Indulgences. 

"  What  then,"  asks  Dr.  Wiseman,  "is  an  indulgence?  It 
is  no  more  than  a  remission  by  the  Church,  in  virtue  of  the 
keys,  or  the  judicial  authority  committed  to  her,  of  a  portion, 
or  the  entire  of  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  sin.  The 
infinite  merits  of  Christ  form  the  fund  whence  this  remission 
is  derived :  but  besides  this,  the  Church  holds,  that  by  the 
communion  of  saints,  penitential  works  performed  hy  the 
just,  beyond  what  their  own  sins  might  exact,  are  available 
to  other  members  of  Chrisfs  mystical  body;  that,  for  instance, 
the  sufferings  of  the  spotless  mother  of  God,  afflictions  such 
as  probably  no  other  human  being  ever  felt  in  the  soul — the 
austerities  and  persecutions  of  the  Baptist,  the  friend  of  the 
Bridegroom,  who  was  sanctified  in  his  mother's  womb,  and 
chosen  to  be  an  angel  before  the  face  of  Christ — the  tortures 
endured  by  numberless  martyrs,  whose  lives  had  been  pure 
from  vice  and  sin — the  prolonged  rigours  of  holy  anchorites, 
who,  flying  from  the  temptations  and  dangers  of  the  world, 
passed  many  years  in  penance  and  contemplation — all  these, 
made  consecrated  and  valid  through  their  union  with  the  merits 
of  Christ's  passion,  were  not  thrown  away,  but  formed  a  store 


DOCTRINE  OF  INDULGENCES.  293 

of  meritorious  blessings^  applicable  to  the  satisfaction  of 
vther  sinners"  Here,  brethren,  we  have,  what  in  the  language 
of  divines  is  called,  the  doctrine  oi'tcorks  of  supererogation  ; 
that  is,  the  notion  that  the  saints  did  and  suffered  a  vast  deal 
which  was  not  required  for  their  own  sake,  but  which  forms 
a  sort  of  stock  of  merits,  for  the  benefit  of  others,  of  which 
the  pope  has  the  supreme  right  of  disposing  to  those  believers 
who  have  not  si^fficient  merits  of  their  own ;  thus  enabling 
them  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God  for  all  the  temporal  punish- 
ment which  remains  due  to  their  sins,  after  the  eternal  pun- 
ishment has  been  forgiven. 

But  still  we  have  not  arrived  at  the  link  in  the  doctrine, 
which  connects  the  temporal  satisfaction  for  sin,  and  the  indul- 
gence by  which  it  is  discharged,  with  purgatory.  And  therefore 
you  must  further  observe,  that  this  punishment,  although 
called  temporal,  and  in  the  case  of  the  penitential  discipline  of 
the  primitive  Church  always  ended  at  death,  has  yet  been 
carried  beyond  the  gmve  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
extended  to  the  whole  period  of  the  intermediate  state,  up  to 
the  day  of  judgment;  so  that  whatever  portion  of  this  temporal 
satisfaction  the  believer  may  leave  unpaid  in  this  life,  he  must 
pay  to  the  full,  by  suffering  in  purgatory.  The  Church 
of  Rome  however  asserts,  that  this  apphcation  of  the  super- 
abundant merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints  may  be  made  after 
death  as  well  as  before  ;  and  that  the  amount  of  the  satisfac- 
tion thus  rendered,  will  relieve  the  suffering  soul  from  an 
equivalent  amount  of  purgatorial  torment.  So  that  the  power 
of  the  pope  and  the  priesthood,  is  thus  marvellously  carried 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  Church  on  earth,  into  the  unseen 
world  of  spirits  ;  and  is  even  believed  to  exert  there ^  its  most  sur- 
prising and  important  efficacy.  This  is  evident  from  the  simple 
consideration,  that  whereas  the  utmost  stretch  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal favour  on  earth,  could  only  relieve  from  the  satisfactory 
penances  or  punishments  of  the  sinner's  life-time,  the  Church 
2  c  2 


294  DOCTRINE  OF  SATISFACTION 

of  Rome  undertakes  to  commute,  by  her  indulgeaces,  the  far 
more  excruciating  torments  of  the  fire  of  purgatory,  for  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  years,  and  even  to  put  an  end  to 
them  altogether  by  what  she  terms  a  plenary  indulgence,  or 
satisfaction  in  full. 

The  precise  details  and  actual  operation  of  these  doctrines, 
brethren,  must  be  reserved  for  another  lecture;  but  I  shall 
now  proceed  to  examine  the  arguments  by  which  they  are 
sustained,  commencing  with  their  notion  of  satisfaction  for  sin, 
which  Dr.  Wiseman  has  well  called  the  poiver  of  selfjustif- 
cation. 

"  The  doctrine  which  is  collected  from  the  Word  of  God,'* 
saith  our  learned  author  in  relation  to  this  subject,  "  is  reduci- 
ble to  these  heads.  1.  That  God,  after  the  remission  of  sin, 
retains  a  lesser  chastisement  in  his  power,  to  be  inflicted  oa 
the  sinner.  2.  That  penitential  works,  fasting,  alms-deeds, 
contrite  weeping,  and  fervent  prayer,  have  the  power  of  avert- 
ing that  punishment.  3.  That  this  scheme  of  God's  justice 
was  not  a  part  of  the  imperfect  law,  but  the  unvarying  ordinance 
of  his  dispensation,  anterior  to  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  amply 
confirmed  by  Christ  in  his  Gospel.  4.  That  it  consequently 
becomes  a  part  of  all  true  repentance  to  try  to  satisfy  this 
divine  justice,  by  the  voluntary  assumption  of  such  penitential 
works,  as  his  revealed  truth  assures  us  have  efficacy  before 
him." 

You  will  observe,  brethren,  as  the  great  characteristics  of 
this  whole  scheme,  these  two  most  objectijonable  propositions: 
First,  that  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  the  divine  justice  is 
divided  between  Christ  and  the  sinner; — the  Saviour  takes 
the  eternal  portion  of  this  satiisfaction,  but  the  temporal  portion 
is  to  be  rendered  by  man.  Secondly,  that  this  satisfaction  is 
not  to  be  made  by  obeying  the  commands  of  God  and  sub- 
mitting to  his  chastisements,  but  by  voluntary  works  and 
sufferings,  undertaken  by  the  sinner.     Both  of  these   posi- 


EXAMINED.  295 

tions  we  hold  to  be  altogether  opposed  to  Scripture,  and  with- 
out any  authority  amongst  the  best  writers  of  the  primitive 
Church.  Our  learned  author,  however,  undertakes  to  sustain 
his  doctrine,  as  usual,  both  by  Scripture  and  tradition.  And 
his  Scriptural  proofs  are  as  follows : — That  Moses  and  Aaron 
were  not  permitted  to  enter  the  promised  land.  That  David 
was  temporally  punished  for  his  sin,  as  well  by  the  death  of 
his  child  as  by  other  calamities,  notwithstanding  the  sin  itself 
was  forgiven.  That  Job,  after  he  had  transgressed,  humbled 
himself  in  dust  and  ashes.  That  the  men  of  Nineveh  pub- 
lished a  general  fast  for  three  days,  from  the  king  on  his 
throne  to  the  beasts  in  their  stalls,  saying  :  Who  can  tell  if 
God  will  turn  and  forgive,  and  will  turn  away  from  his  fierce 
anger,  that  we  perish  not.  Nay,  Dr.  Wiseman  even  refers 
to  our  first  parents  in  paradise  as  an  example,  because  he 
says  that  their  sin  was  forgiven,  and  yet  the  most  bitter  con- 
sequences were  entailed  on  them  and  their  posterity. 

The  passages  from  the  New  Testament  which  our  author 
cites  in  justification  of  his  doctrine,  are  partly  negative,  and 
partly  positive.  Assuming  that  his  system  was  the  existing 
system  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  he  argues,  that  our  Saviour 
introduced  no  change  in  this  respect,  but  rather  recommended 
penitential  works,  such  as  fasting,  both  by  precept  and  exam- 
ple. And  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Colossians,  declares,  "  I  now 
rejoice  in  my  sufferings  for  you,  and  fill  up  those  things  which 
are  wanting  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  in  my  flesh,  for  his 
body  which  is  the  Church."  "  What  is  wanting  of  Christ's 
sufferings?"  exclaims  Dr.  Wiseman,  "and  this  to  be  supplied 
by  man  and  in  his  flesh!  What  sort  of  doctrine  call  we  this? 
Is  it  in  favour  of  the  completeness  of  Christ's  sufl^erings,  as  to 
their  application  ?  Or  rather  does  it  not  suppose  that  much  is 
to  be  done  by  man,  towards  possessing  himself  of  the  treasures 
laid  up  in  our  Saviour's  redemption;  and  that  svffering  is 
the  means  whereby  this  application  is  made?"    Here,  brethren, 


296  DOCTRIIVE    OF    SATISFACTION 

our  learned  author  really  seems  to  think  that  his  argument  is 
triumphant,  since  he  imagines  it  clearly  manifested  in  Scrip- 
ture. Whereas,  I  am  much  deceived,  if  a  little,  and  but  a  little 
sober  examination  will  not  fully  prove,  that  the  testimony  he 
has  alleged  is  either  wholly  irrelevant,  or  else  positively  against 
him.  But  before  I  enter  upon  the  particular  passages  relied 
on,  let  me  premise  a  general  remark,  applicable  to  the  whole 
subject,  namely,  that  we  hold  it  altogether  contrary  to  the  ho- 
nour of  the  Gospel  to  consider  our  temporal  afflictions  as  being, 
in  any  degree  or  sense  whatever,  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice 
of  God.  That  can  be  rendered  by  nothing  but  the  atonement 
and  righteousness  of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  applied  to  the 
believer  by  repentance  and  faith,  after  suitable  acts  of  confes- 
sion, humiliation,  and  prayer.  Neither  do  I  see  how  Dr. 
Wiseman's  doctrine  can  be  supported  by  any  analogy  with  the 
acts  of  earthly  governments.  He  observes,  indeed,  that  where 
the  law  "  would  inflict  the  severest  punishment,  mercy  steps  in 
and  pardons ;  but  some  slight  and  passing  chastisement  is  im- 
posed, as  a  satisfaction  to  public  justice."  (P.  36.)  Of  such 
a  mode  of  granting  pardons,  brethren,  we  know  nothing.  And 
if  it  has  been  practised  by  the  absolute  governments  of  Europe, 
which  I  greatly  doubt,  yet  sure  I  am  that  it  never  could  have 
been  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  satisfaction  to  the  government. 
Such  a  commutation  of  punishment  may  have  been  imposed, 
as  a  satisfaction  to  what  Dr.  Wiseman  calls  public  justice, 
meaning,  I  presume,  public  feeling  or  opinion.  But  there  is 
no  way  of  satisfying  public  justice  that  ever  we  heard  of,  by 
pardoning  an  acknowledged  offender ;  although  cases  may  be 
imagined  in  which  the  public  sympathies  would  be  satisfied  by 
an  exchange  of  a  heavier  for  a  lighter  sentence.  Surely,  how- 
ever, it  requires  no  argument  to  show,  that  to  talk  about  satis- 
fying justice  by  any  thing  else  than  a  full  equivalent  for  the 
sentence  pronounced,  is  a  mere  darkening  of  counsel  by  words 
without  knowledge.     And  if  we  may  not  trifle  thus  with  the 


EXABIINED.  297 

principles  of  earthly  justice,  how  much  more  are  we  bound  not 
to  trifle  with  the  justice  of  God  ! 

There  is,  therefore,  only  one  view  of  the  subject,  in  which 
the  use  of  the  phrase  satisfaction  is  at  all  appropriate;  namely, 
when  the  interests  of  society,  of  the  Church,  and  of  our  fellow 
sinners,  are  considered.  This  was,  doubtless,  the  main  ground 
of  the  old  penitential  canons,  which  prohibited  offenders  from 
entering  the  Church,  and  inflicted  public  penance  upon  them 
for  months,  for  years,  or  even  for  life,  according  to  the  enor- 
mity of  their  transgression.  It  was  not  that  they  thought  sin- 
ners were  able,  in  this  way,  to  satisfy  even  the  temporal  require- 
ments of  the  justice  of  God,  as  Dr.  Wiseman  would  persuade 
us ;  but  it  was  in  order  to  satisfy  the  Church  on  earth,  to  have 
proof  of  the  sinner's  thorough  repentance  and  amendment,  to 
vindicate  the  holiness  of  the  gospel  in  the  eyes  of  the  heathen 
around  them,  and  to  deter  others  from  sin  by  these  spectacles 
of  salutary  public  humiliation.  And  hence  we  find  a  perfect 
contrast  in  the  mode  of  proceeding,  when  we  compare  the 
system  of  the  ancient,  with  that  of  the  modern  Church  of 
Rome.  For  the  ancient  Church  never  pronounced  the  absolu- 
tion of  the  sinner  until  the  -period  of  this  discipline  teas  ended, 
unless  the  penitent  was  at  the  point  of  death.  Whereas,  the 
modern  Church  of  Rome  pronounces  the  absolution  imme- 
diately on  receiving  the  confession  ;  appoints  her  light  and 
trifling  penances  to  be  performed  afterwards,  at  the  option  of 
the  ofTender ;  and  then  tells  us  that  the  measure  of  temporal 
punishment,  actually  due  to  the  unsatisfied  justice  of  God,  will 
be  exacted  after  death  in  the  fires  of  purgatory.  Now,  it  is 
perfectly  incomprehensible  to  me,  how,  under  such  circumstan- 
ces, any  intelligent  mind  could  imagine,  that  the  penitential 
canons  of  the  primitive  Church  were  based  on  the  same  prin- 
ciples as  the  modern  Roman  theory. 

But  it  is  time  that  we  attend  to  the  authorities   which  our 
ingenious  advocate  thinks  he  has  alleged  from  Scripture.     Com- 


298  DOCTRINE    OF    SATISFACTION 

mencing  with  Adam  and  Eve,  Dr.  Wiseman  informs  us,  that 
after  their  sin  was  forgiven,  God  inflicted  temporal  punish- 
ments on  them  and  their  posterity.  In  this  hypothesis,  how- 
ever, there  is  an  assertion  that  cannot  be  proved,  namely,  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  and  Eve  was  forgiven.  This  part  of  the  case 
is  pure  conjecture.  We  do  not  read  of  their  confession,  nor  of 
their  repentance,  nor  of  their  faith  in  the  promised  Redeemer. 
The  first  believer  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  is  Abel,  their  son  ; 
and  therefore,  if  there  were  no  other  objection,  it  is  clear  that 
this  citation  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Roman  doctrine. 
Independently  of  this  difficulty,  however,  there  is  another,  still 
greater.  For  our  learned  author's  theory  requires  not  only 
the  fact,  that  the  Lord  forgives  the  sinner,  and  afterwards  pun- 
ishes the  sin  in  the  present  life ;  but  that  this  temporal  punish- 
ment extends  beyond  the  grave,  and  that  although  the  departed 
soul  can  do  nothing  in  its  suffering  state  to  help  itself,  yet  satis- 
faction may  be  rendered  by  the  Church  on  its  behalf,  by  pen- 
ances, alms,  masses,  prayers,  and  especially  by  indulgences. 
How  many  of  these  points,  in  honesty,  does  our  author  think 
he  can  prove  by  the  case  of  Adam  and  Eve  ? 

The  instance  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  deprived,  for  a  compara- 
tively light  transgression,  in  Dr.  Wiseman's  esteem,  of  the 
privilege  of  entering  the  land  of  Canaan,  labours  under  equal 
difficulties,  although  not  precisely  of  the  same  description. 
For  I  suppose  our  ingenious  arguer  would  hardly  consider  the 
peaceful  and  blessed  death  of  these  saints,  full  of  years  and 
glory,  as  a  temporal  punishment  for  their  sin,  when  contrasted 
with  the  cares,  and  strifes,  and  hardships,  of  the  government  of 
Israel.  True  it  was,  indeed,  that  the  denial  of  Moses'  request, 
and  the  giving  the  honour  of  his  commission  to  Joshua,  just 
on  the  borders  of  the  promised  land,  was  a  proof  to  all  Israel 
that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons ;  and  the  recital  affords  a 
further  proof  of  the  admirable  integrity  of  the  record,  in  which 
Moses  himself  erects  the  perpetual  memorial  of  his  own  shame. 


EXAMINED.  299 

But  it  must  be  a  pure  effort  of  the  imagination,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  that  can  discover  in  this  narrative  any  thing  Uke  a  temporal 
punishment  awarded  to  the  patriarch,  in  order  to  satisfy  the 
justice  of  the  Almighty. 

The  third  case  cited  by  Dr.  Wiseman  is  that  of  David,  in 
which,  after  the  confession  and  repentance  of  the  royal  Psahn- 
ist,  the  prophet  saith  to  him,  "  The  Lord  also  hath  put  away 
thy  sin.     Nevertheless,  because,  by  this  thing  thou  hast  caused 
the  enemies  of  the  Lord  to  blaspheme,  the  child  that  is  born 
unto  thee  shall  surely  die."     We  read  that  David  wept  and 
fasted,  and  lay  all  night  upon  the  ground,  trusting  that  the 
Almighty  would  yet  take  pity  on  him,  and  revoke  his  sentence 
by  sparing  the  life  of  the  child.     And  these  acts  Dr.  Wise- 
man considers  as  an  offering  of  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of 
God  in  one  kind  of  suffering,  in  the  hope  that  this  might  be 
accepted   instead  of  the   other.     But  there  is   no  such  idea 
intimated  in  the  sacred  history.     Nor  do  I  see  how  the  royal 
penitent  could  be  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  impious  presump- 
tion, if  he  was  capable  of  seriously  proposing  to  give  the  Lord 
a  certain  portion  of  weeping,  and  fasting,  and  watching,  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  life  of  his  child,  which  God   had  resolved 
to  take  away.     No  two  things  can  be  more  oppposite,  in  my 
apprehension,  than   the  theory  of  the  king,  and  that  of  our 
Roman   advocate.      The    sorrowful    monarch's   prayers  and 
supplications  were  addressed,  not  to  the  justice  of  the  Deity, 
but  to  the  LOVE  of  his  heavenly  father — to  Him  that  was 
"merciful  and  gracious,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great  kindness, 
and  that  repenteth  him  of  the  evil."     But  Dr.  Wiseman  would 
have  the  whole  brought  into  the  commercial  form  of  a  commuta- 
tion of  punishment,  a  barter  and  exchange  of  one  kind  of  suf- 
fering instead  of  another,  addressed,  by  way  o^  satisfaction,  to 
the  justice  of  God.     Surely  it   is   manifest  that  the   sacred 
record  gives  no  countenance  to  such  an  interpretation. 

The  fourth  example  is  that  of  Job,  which  is  supposed  to  be 


300  DOCTRINE    or    SATISFACTION 

in  point,  because  the  patriarch  humbled  himself,  and  repented 
in  dust  and  ashes.  But  look  at  the  whole  case,  and  it  will 
furnish  an  instance  which  is  the  very  reverse  of  the  Roman 
theory.  For  what  our  author  has  to  prove,  is,  that  after  the 
sin  is  forgiven,  the  penitent  is  teni'porally  punished,  not  only 
here,  hut  hereafter.  Whereas,  in  the  case  of  Job,  as  soon  as 
he  repented,  he  was  restored  forthwith  to  all  his  temporal  pros- 
perity. Wealth  flowed  back  upon  him,  his  friends  flocked 
around  and  gave  him  presents,  he  had  again  seven  sons  and 
three  daughters  ;  and  the  Lord  blessed  the  latter  end  of  Job 
more  than  his  beginning.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  more 
emphatically  opposed  to  Dr.  Wiseman's  object,  than  the  his- 
tory of  Job,  when  the  whole  is  taken  together. 

The  next  attempt  of  our  ingenious  advocate  to  find  Scrip- 
tural authority  for  his  doctrine  of  penal  and  commutative 
satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  is  drawn  from  the  history  of 
the  Ninevites,  who,  when  the  prophet  Jonah  proclaimed  that 
in  forty  days  their  city  should  be  destroyed,  proclaimed  a  fast, 
humbled  themselves,  and  even  obliged  the  beasts  in  the  stalls 
to  partake  of  their  voluntary  mortification,  by  depriving  them 
of  food  for  three  days  together.  In  compassion  and  mercy, 
God  allowed  them  a  respite,  and  postponed  the  destruction  of 
their  idolatrous  and  wicked  city,  until  the  cup  of  its  iniquity 
was  filled  by  the  next  generation.  How  does  this  prove  the 
Roman  doctrine  of  satisfaction?  Where  is  their  fundamental 
proposition,  that  God  forgives  sin  as  to  its  eternal  conse- 
quences, and  afterwards  inflicts  temporal  punishment  upon  the 
sinner?  Can  Dr.  Wiseman  prove  that  the  sins  of  the  Nine- 
vites were  forgiven  at  all  ?  For  certainly  their  alarm  and  their 
manifestation  of  sorrow  do  not  amount  to  a  proof,  that  they 
became  proselytes  to  the  worship  of  the  God  of  Israel.  Or 
can  he  seriously  suppose,  that  three  days'  fasting  of  the  Nine- 
vites was  such  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  that  he 
accepted  it  as  a  sort  of  commutation  for  the  destruction  of  their 


EXAMINED.  301 

city  ?  Is  it  possible  for  any  one  to  help  seeing,  that  this  was 
one  of  the  innumerable  examples  in  the  Bible,  where  the  tender 
compassion  of  that  God  whose  name  is  Love,  suspends  the 
stroke  of  his  justice,  even  although  it  is  sure  to  descend  at 
last?  Alas!  brethren,  can  any  error  in  doctrine  be  more 
pernicious  than  this,  which  turns  the  very  pity  of  the  Lord 
into  an  imaginary  judicial  calculation,  and  makes  three  days' 
suffering  of  penance  in  fasting  and  sackcloth,  a  discharge  in 
full  of  the  temporal  debt  due  to  that  fearful  and  tremendous 
attribute — the  justice  of  Almighty  Got>? 

But  our  author,  having  thus  closed  his  list  of  proofs  from 
the  Old  Testament,  thinks  that  he  finds  corroboration  in  the 
encouragement  given  by  our  blessed  Redeemer  to  fasting. 
Here,  however,  is  the  radical  error  of  all  such  reasoning.  Fast- 
ing and  abstinence,  with  every  other  act  of  self-mortification 
mentioned  in  Scripture,  such  as  wearing  sackcloth,  or  covering 
the  head  with  ashes,  may  be  used  and  often  have  been  used, 
for  reasons  which  had  not  the  slightest  reference  to  the 
Roman  doctrine  of  satisfaction.  First,  as  an  exercise  of 
authority  by  the  soul  over  the  body,  according  to  St.  Paul. 
"  I  keep  my  body  under,"  saith  he,  "  and  bring  it  into  subjec- 
tion ;"  the  believer  designing  in  this  way,  to  confirm,  as  it 
were,  by  habit  and  practice,  the  dominion  of  the  spirit  over 
the  flesh.  Secondly,  as  a  useful  act  of  self-denial,  to  conquer 
certain  common  propensities  to  sin.  As,  for  example,  intem- 
perance in  eating  and  drinking,  or  the  sin  of  gluttony,  was 
directly  combated  in  the  act  of  fasting;  while  vanity  and 
pride  in  personal  appearance  and  apparel,  were  directly  com- 
bated in  the  wearing  of  sackcloth  and  the  covering  of  ashes. 
And  thirdly,  these  acts  of  mortifying  discipline  might  be 
designed  as  an  open  acknowledgment  of  the  penitent's  share 
in  the  common  guilt  and  danger,  which  was  the  principle  of 
those  public  and  general  acts  of  humiliation  of  which  we  read 
in  Scripture.  Now  here  are  three  motives  for  these  penitential 
2d 


302  DOCTRINE    OF    SATISFACTION 

observances,  sufficient  in  themselves,  and  yet  perfectly  distinct 
from  the  strange  corruption  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which 
can  see  nothing  in  them  but  a  satisfaction  or  discharge  of  a 
certain  portion  of  the  debt  due  to  God'^s  justice;  thus  convert- 
ing the  very  discipline  of  our  fleshly  appetites  into  a  claim  of 
merit,  and  persuading  the  sinner  that  he  has  done  something 
towards  the  stupendous  work  of  atonement  for  sin,  which  the 
infinite  love  and  majesty  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  were  alone 
able  to  perform. 

While,  therefore,  we  can  thus  assign  valid  and  sufficient 
reasons  for  the  occasional  austerities  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints,  we  deny  that  there  was  any  thing  in  their  lives  like  the 
Roman  notion  of  satisfaction,  where  every  voluntary  act  of  suf- 
fering is  regarded  as  a  positive  payment  of  so  much  of  the  debt 
due  to  God's  justice,  either  for  themselves  or  for  others.  Hence, 
too,  in  the  instructions  of  our  blessed  Lord,  while  the  whole 
weight  of  his  authority  is  directed  against  the  Pharisaical  prac- 
tice of  fasting  for  ostentation  and  display,  he  adds  no  new 
day  of  fasting  to  the  Mosaic  ritual ;  he  gives  no  precept  in 
favour  of  sackcloth  or  ashes,  nor  does  he  prescribe  a  single 
rule  of  bodily  suffering  or  self-mortification.  Nor  is  there  one 
of  his  apostles  who  recommends  any  regulation  of  the  kind, 
as  a  law  to  be  bound  upon  the  Church.  But  if  the  Roman 
doctrine  be  true — if  penitential  voluntary  works,  performed 
by  the  sinner  himself  during  life,  or  by  the  Church  after  his 
death,  were  necessary  to  discharge  the  temporal  debt  due  to 
God^s  Justice^  over  and  above  the  atonement  of  Christ, — and 
if,  for  want  of  these,  temporal  afflictions  in  this  world,  and  the 
excruciating  fires  of  purgatory  beyond  the  grave  up  to  the 
very  day  of  judgment,  might  be  the  lot  even  of  the  righteous, 
how  does  it  happen  that  the  blessed  Saviour  and  his  inspired 
apostles  should  have  left  so  much  of  all  other  doctrine  to  the 
(Jhurch,  without  saying  one  word  on  so  important  a  matter? 

But  let  me  not  forget,  brethren,  that  Dr.  Wiseman  gives  us 


EXAMINED.  303 

one  other  passage  from  Scripture,  which  he  seems  to  think 
conclusive  in  his  favour,  and  therefore  it  must  be  considered 
with  all  due  attention.  It  is  the  passage  in  which  the  great 
apostle,  writing  to  the  Colossians,  declares:  "1  now  rejoice  in 
my  sufferings  for  you,  and  fill  up  those  things  which  are  want- 
ing of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  in  my  flesh,  for  his  body,  which 
is  the  Church."  Now  this  text,  hke  a  very  large  portion  of 
St.  Paul's  writings,  is  elliptical  and  somewhat  obscure;  remind- 
ing us  of  what  St.  Peter  records,  when  he  saith,  that  in  his 
beloved  brother  Paul's  epistles,  "  there  are  some  things  hard 
to  be  understood,  which  the  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest,  as 
they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction." 
Nevertheless,  there  is  ^nothing  in  it  which  at  all  militates 
against  our  doctrine,  or  lends  any  support  to  the  theory  of 
human  justification,  which  our  learned  advocate  would  rest 
on  its  authority.  Let  us  examine  it  thoroughly,  and  I  trust 
you  will  see  that  it  teaches  a  very  different  lesson. 

Three  propositions  are  distinctly  marked  in  the  sentence : 
first,  that  the  apostle  rejoices  in  his  sufferings;  secondly,  that 
he  calls  these  sufferings  a  fiUing-up  of  those  things  which  are 
wanting  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  his  flesh;  thirdly,  that 
this  is  for  the  benefit  of  Christ's  Church,  which  is  his  body. 

On  the  first  point  there  can  be  no  room  for  cavil.  Our 
gracious  Redeemer  himself  said:  "Blessed  are  ye  when  men 
shall  revile  you  and  persecute  you,  and  shall  say  all  manner 
of  evil  against  you  falsely  for  my  sake.  Rejoice  and  be  ex- 
ceeding glad,  for  great  is  your  reward  in  heaven."  In  per- 
fect agreement  with  this,  we  find  that  the  apostles,  when  they 
had  been  scourged  and  imprisoned  for  preaching  Christ,  "re- 
joiced that  they  were  counted  worthy  to  suffer  shame  for  his 
name."  And  St.  James  has  recorded  the  same  principle 
where  he  saith:  "Beloved,  count  it  all  joy  when  ye  fall  into 
divers  trials,  knowing  that  the  trial  of  your  faith  worketh  pa- 
tience, and  patience  hope."     Here  we  have  a  general  princi- 


304  DOCTRINE    OF    SATISFACTION 

pie,  lying  at  the  very  root  of  all  religion.  We  must  sow  in 
tears,  if  we  would  reap  in  joy.  "Through  tribulation,"  saith 
Christ,  "ye  must  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  "If  we 
suffer  with  Christ,"  saith  St.  Paul,  "  we  shall  also  reign  with 
him."  And  again:  "Our  light  affliction,  which  endures  but 
for  a  moment,  worketh  out  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and 
eternal  weight  of  glory." 

Thus  far,  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  sufficiently  plain. 
But  now  comes  the  second  proposition,  that  the  apostle  calls 
his  sufferings,  "  a  filling  up  of  those  things  which  are  wanting 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  his  flesh."  Here,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  words,  taken  by  themselves,  might  be  thought  to 
signify  a  deficiency  in  the  amount  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
which  was  to  be  supplied  by  St.  Paul.  But  this  is  an  absurdity 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  would  by  means  tolerate.  So  far 
from  it,  that  she  undertakes  to  pronounce,  as  you  will  see  by 
and  by,  that  our  Lord  suffered  much  more  than  was  necessary, 
for  one  drop  of  his  blood  was  sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world ;  and  therefore  the  rest,  as  they  imagine, 
has  been  laid  up  along  with  the  superfluous  good  works  of  the 
saints,  as  a  treasure  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  merit  in 
Christians  at  large.  It  is  plainly  impossible,  therefore,  for 
Dr.  Wiseman  to  ask,  that  we  shall  believe  that  there  was  a 
deficiency  in  Christ's  sufferings,  since  clearly  there  cannot  be, 
at  the  same  time,  a  superabundance  and  a  deficiency  of  the 
very  same  thing.  This  interpretation,  therefore,  being  dis- 
carded by  both  sides,  we  must  look  for  another ;  and  that 
brethren,  we  can  readily  find  in  the  beautiful  and  affecting 
announcement  of  the  same  apostle,  where  he  saith  to  the 
Hebrews,  "  We  have  not  an  High  Priest  who  cannot  be 
touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  infirmities,  but  was  tempted  in 
all  points  like  as  we  are,  and  yet  without  sin."  Christ  Jesus, 
our  great  High  Priest,  although  the  atoning  sufferings  of  his 
own  sacred  Person  are  over,  still  sympathizes  with  the  suffer- 


EXAMINED.  305 

ings  of  his  people,  and  considers  them  his  own.  It  is  one 
of  the  precious  privileges  resulting  from  the  completeness  of 
our  union  with  him,  from  which  union  flows  our  only  hope  of 
salvation.  To  express  this  most  essentia]  principle  of  the 
believer's  life,  every  metaphor  and  allegory  of  language  are 
exhausted.  If  he  is  the  vine,  we  are  the  branches.  If  he  is 
the  rock,  we  are  the  living  stones  built  upon  it.  If  he  is  the 
Bridegroom,  his  Church  is  the  Bride.  He  gives  us  his  flesh 
to  eat,  his  blood  to  drink ;  he  enters  into  our  hearts  by  his 
Spirit,  and  dwells  there  that  we  may  be  one  with  him.  In 
his  own  description  of  the  judgment  day,  he  accounts  every 
act  of  kindness  performed  for  the  least  of  his  people,  a  charity 
done  to  his  own  person  ;  every  injury  and  neglect,  a  wrong  to 
himself:  "Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  to 
the  least  among  my  brethren,  ye  did  it  unto  me."  But  none 
of  these  metaphors  is  more  full  of  expression  than  that  which 
St.  Paul  so  often  uses,  and  especially  in  the  passage  before  us  ; 
where  Christ  is  the  head,  and  his  Church  is  the  body,  and 
each  particular  Christian  is  a  member  of  that  body.  Here, 
then,  we  have  a  simple  key  to  the  whole  of  this  seeming 
mystery.  Christ,  in  his  own  glorious  Person,  God  and  man, 
satisfied  all  the  claims  of  divine  justice  against  our  ruined 
race,  by  his  precious  and  perfect  obedience  and  death.  To 
that  end,  his  sufferings  were  all  sufficient,  and  no  creature  is 
entitled  to  share  with  him  in  the  very  least  portion  of  that 
mighty  and  stupendous  redemption.  But  his  people  can  only 
be  made  partakers  of  the  immortality  and  bliss  thus  purchased 
for  them,  by  becoming  united  with  him ;  and  this  union  re- 
quires  not  only  the  powerful  and  regenerating  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  change  their  hearts,  but  also  the  discipline  of 
trials  and  suflierings,  that  they  may  learn  to  know,  and  love, 
and  resemble  Him,  in  holiness  and  virtue.  Understanding, 
therefore,  to  what  end  this  discipline  is  appointed,  his  saints 
rejoice  in  it.     That  very  suflTering  over  which  the  worldly 

2  d2 


306  DOCTRINE    OF    SATISFACTION. 

heart  laments  and  mourns,  gives  them  an  occasion  of  thanks- 
giving, because  they  are  not  alone.  Christ  looks  on  their 
sufferings  with  tender  compassion.  Christ  appoints  those 
sufferings  for  their  good.  Christ  is  touched  with  a  feeling  of 
their  very  infirmities.  Does  the  fond  mother  feel  no  emotion  at 
the  pains  of  her  beloved  child?  Does  not  every  moan  of  its 
anguish,  every  cry  of  its  agony,  produce  an  answering  pang 
at  her  very  heart-strings?  Yet  the  love  of  Christ  is  stronger 
than  this  strongest  of  human  affections :  "  When  thy  father 
and  thy  mother  forsake  thee,  the  Lord  taketh  thee  up."  Nay, 
there  is  a  peculiarity  in  the  case  of  the  Christian's  relation  to 
his  Saviour,  to  which  no  earthly  relationship  can  afford  a 
parallel.  For  he  is  a  member  of  that  body  of  which  Christ 
is  the  head.  And  can  the  member  suffer,  without  the  head  ? 
Even  though  the  actual  seat  of  the  pain  be  in  the  farthest 
extremity  of  the  body,  can  the  head  avoid  feeling  as  if  it  were 
its  own?  And  while  the  body  or  any  member  of  it  continues 
to  suffer,  is  there  not  truly  something  remaining  for  the  head 
to  suffer  with  it  ? 

Thus  then,  brethren,  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul,  in  this  second 
proposition,  is  seen  to  be  a  consistent,  pure  and  inestimable  part 
of  the  Christian's  consolation,  during  his  earthly  pilgrimage, 
without  the  slightest  approximation  to  the  unhappy  error  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  seeks  to  render  plausible,  under  its  sup- 
posed authority.  And  the  third  point  in  the  text  presents  still 
less  difficulty,  namely,  where  the  apostle  saith,  that  his  suffer- 
ings are  for  the  Church ;  that  is,  on  account  of  the  Church, 
or  for  the  Church's  benefit.  That  the  persecutions,  stripes, 
imprisonment,  and  final  martyrdom  of  the  apostles,  were  on 
account  of  the  Church,  is  sufficiently  plain  from  the  simple 
fact,  that  they  were  all  endured  in  the  work  of  preaching  the 
gospel  of  salvation  to  every  creature.  That  they  were  all  for 
the  benefit  of  the  Church  is  equally  plain;  because  it  was 
chiefly  through  them,  that  the  power  of  divine  grace  was  dis- 


DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORr.  307 

played  in  so  irresistible  a  manner,  that  Jews  and  Gentiles  were 
alike  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  work  to  be  of  God.  And 
they  were  equally  beneficial  to  the  Church  in  the  edifying  ex- 
ample thus  placed  before  believers,  for  nothing  could  brino- 
Christians  so  effectually  to  the  necessary  practice  of  self-denial  ; 
nothing  induce  them  so  powerfully  to  live  above  the  world,  to 
take  joyfully  the  spoiling  of  their  own  goods,  to  bear  patiently 
the  cross  of  persecution,  to  remember  that  on  earth  they  were 
but  strangers  and  pilgrims,  seeking  an  eternal  and  celestial 
habitation,  and  thus  to  show  forth  their  own  light  before  men, 
so  that  they,  seeing  the  good  works  of  the  faithful,  might  be 
led  to  seek  their  Father  in  heaven — nothing,  in  a  word,  could 
have  a  happier  influence  upon  the  whole  course  of  the  Church 
at  large,  than  the  spectacle  of  the  apostles,  forgetting  self  in 
the  promotion  of  the  common  welfare,  and  even  rejoicing  in 
sufferings  for  the  flock  committed  to  their  care.  What  is  there 
in  all  this  that  looks  like  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  satis- 
faction  to  the  justice  of  God  by  voluntary  acts  of  penance  and 
suffering,  performed  after  sin  is  forgiven,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
infliction  of  temporal  chastisement  in  this  life,  or  the  torment 
of  fire  in  the  life  to  come  1 

Having  thus  examined  at  length,  brethren,  the  Scriptural 
evidence  adduced  for  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  because  I 
hold  it  to  be  of  such  high  importance  among  those  errors  which 
we  are  obliged  to  charge  upon  the  Church  of  Rome,  I  have  next 
to  present  to  your  attention  the  proof  which  our  learned  author 
adduces  on  the  subject  o^ purgatory.  And  here,  he  begins  with 
the  custom  of  prayers  for  the  dead,  citing,  for  proof,  the  second 
book  of  Maccabees,  which,  as  Dr.  Wiseman  justly  observes,  is  at 
least  entitled  to  respect  as  a  history  of  the  Jewish  people,  anterior 
to  the  coming  of  the  Saviour.  The  passage  is  in  the  12th 
chapter,  and  gives  an  account  of  a  battle  fought  by  Judas 
Maccabeus,  the  commander  of  the  Jewish  army,  against  Gor- 
gias,  the  governor  of  Idumea,  in  which  some  of  the  Jews 


808  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD, 

were  slain,  although  Judas  obtained  a  splendid  victory.  The 
day  after  the  battle,  he  came  with  his  soldiers  to  bury  his  dead; 
"and  they  found,"  saith  the  historian,  "under  the  coats  of  the 
slain,  some  of  the  (donaries)  or  things  consecrated  to  the  idols 
of  Jamnia,  which  their  law  forbiddeth  to  the  Jews;  so  that  all 
plainly  saw  that  for  this  cause  they  were  slain.  Then  they 
all  blessed  the  just  judgment  of  the  Lord,  who  had  discovered 
the  things  that  were  hidden ;  and  so  betaking  themselves  to 
prayers,  they  besought  him  that  the  sin  which  had  been  com- 
mitted might  be  forgotten.  But  Judas  sent  12,000  drachms  of 
silver  to  Jerusalem  for  sacrifice,  to  be  offered  for  the  sins  of 
the  dead,  thinking  well  and  religiously  concerning  the  resur- 
rection. It  is  therefore  a  holy  and  wholesome  thought  to  pray 
for  the  dead,  that  they  may  be  loosed  from  sin." 

Now  there  is  one  serious  difficulty  about  this  whole  matter, 
namely,  that  the  book  in  which  it  is  contained  possesses  no 
canonical  authority,  because  it  was  never  reckoned  amongst 
their  inspired  writings  by  the  Jews  themselves,  who  are  the 
only  proper  judges  of  the  Scriptures  belonging  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Neither  was  it  so  reckoned  in  the  best  catalogues  of 
the  primitive  Church.  Therefore,  the  reflections  of  the  histo- 
rian upon  the  conduct  of  Judas  Maccabeus,  have  no  ibrce  be- 
yond the  notions  of  any  other  nameless  author.  The  facts, 
however,  in  the  main,  we  suppose  to  be  correctly  stated. 
That  the  battle  was  fought,  that  the  victory  was  gained,  and 
that  the  slain  Jews  were  found  to  have  been  secret  idolaters 
by  the  consecrated  things  discovered  on  their  persons,  may  all 
be  admitted.  Neither  do  we  deny  the  probability,  at  least, 
that  Judas  and  his  company  prayed  for  the  dead,  and  sent 
money  to  have  sacrifices  offered  on  their  behalf  at  Jerusalem. 
But  the  inference  which  Dr.  Wiseman  would  draw  from  it, 
that  such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's  days, 
and  that  he  never  reproved  it,  is  entirely  unwarrantable.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  our  Lord  did  reprove  them  sharply,  for 


WITHOUT    SCRIPTURAL    AUTHORITY.  309 

making  void  the  law  of  God  by  their  traditions,  of  which 
he  stated  one  or  two  instances,  saying,  in  conclusion,  "  and 
many  other  such  like  things  ye  do;"  from  which  we  learn  that 
there  were  a  variety  of  corruptions  which  the  Saviour  did  not 
then  specify;  and  it  is  at  least  likely  that  this  was  amongst 
them,  since  it  is  very  certain  that  the  law  of  Moses  gave  no 
authority  nor  sanction  to  sacrifices  for  the  dead.  There  is 
another  argunnent,  however,  which  ought  to  be  conclusive  with 
Dr.  Wiseman :  namely,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  historian  on 
whom  he  relies,  is  not  in  agreement  with  the  Church  of  Rome 
at  all;  although  the  passage  is  so  constantly  quoted  in  her  fa- 
vour. For  there  can  be  no  question  that  these  Jews,  whose 
story  is  related  in  the  book  of  Maccabees,  died  in  idolatry; 
and  that  the  Church  of  Rome  holds  this  to  be  a  mortal  siuy 
the  commission  of  which,  if  not  renounced  by  repentance  and 
confession,  certainly  takes  the  soul,  according  to  their  own 
doctrine,  not  to  purgatory,  hvt  to  hell,  out  of  which  there  is 
no  redemption.  It  results,  therefore,  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
could  not  justify  the  doctrine  of  this  book  of  Maccabees  on  her 
own  principles.  Consequently,  the  case  proves  quite  too  much 
for  their  purpose ;  and  hence,  by  the  rules  of  logic,  it  must  be 
taken  to  prove  nothing. 

Our  author's  next  quotation  is  from  the  passage  where  our 
Lord,  speaking  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  saith;  "it 
shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  the  world 
to  come:"  from  which  he  concludes  that  there  are  some  sins 
which  may  he  forgiven  in  the  future  state.  In  answer  to  this 
it  is  surely  enough  to  observe,  that  it  can  have  no  possible 
bearing  on  their  doctrine  of  purgatory,  understand  it  how  we 
may.  Because  we  have  seen  that  the  Church  of  Rome  as- 
signs purgatory,  and  voluntary  penances,  and  prayers  for  the 
dead,  to  those  ivhose  sins  are  forgiven  in  this  life;  but  who 
have  to  satisfy  the  justice  of  God  as  to  the  temporal  penalty 
due  to  them,  after  the  eternal  penalty  is  completely  remitted  in 


310  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY 

absolution.  Hence  they  utterly  deny  that  the  relief  of  the 
souls  in  purgatory  is  by  way  of  fo?'gii}€ness  or  absolvtion  of 
sin,  and  insist  that  it  is  solely  by  way  of  satisfaction  or  pay- 
ment; the  superabundant  merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints, 
which  constitute  the  treasure  of  the  Church,  being  applied  to 
the  debt  which  the  departed  soul  owes  to  the  divine  justice, 
and  thus  extinguishing  it  in  the  manner  of  an  offset,  in  the 
business  of  men.  Hence  it  is  manifest,  that  this  text  is  as  lit- 
tle suited  to  their  doctrine  as  any  thing  can  be,  even  if  we 
granted,  what  is  more  than  doubtful,  that  their  interpretation 
was  correct. 

There  is  one  passage  more,  in  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the 
believer's  having  built  upon  the  true  foundation,  gold,  silver, 
precious  stones,  wood,  hay,  stubble.  (1  Cor.  iii.  13.)  "Every 
man's  work,"  saith  the  apostle,  "shall  be  made  manifest,  for 
the  day  of  the  Lord  shall  declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed 
by  fire;  and  the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what  sort 
it  is.  If  any  man's  work  abide  which  he  hath  built  thereupon, 
he  shall  receive  a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  burn,  he  shall 
suffer  loss;  but  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire." 
From  this,  our  Roman  advocates  gather  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory with  more  confidence,  than  from  any  thing  else  in  Scrip- 
ture. And  yet,  brethren,  there  are  several  arguments  against 
such  an  interpretation,  which  appear  to  my  mind  perfectly 
irresistible.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  apostle  speaks  of  the 
fire,  as  trying  everi/  man's  work,  as  well  the  gold,  silver,  and 
jewels,  as  the  wood,  hay,  and  stubble.  This  cannot  therefore 
be  the  fire  of  ptirgatory,  which  never  detains  the  saints,  but 
only  the  ordinary  believers.  Secondly,  the  apostle  speaks  of 
the  fire  as  revealing  the  quality  of  our  works  in  connexion  with 
the  day  of  the  Lord,  that  is,  as  all  agree,  the  day  of  judgment, 
when  the  souls  of  men,  re-united  to  their  bodies,  shall  stand 
before  the  tribunal  of  Christ.  But  this  cannot  be  the  purga- 
torial fire  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  has  always  been 


CONTRARY    TO    SCRIPTURE.  311 

burning,  as  they  say,  for  the  punishment  of  souls  without  bo- 
dies, and  shall  continue  to  burn  until  the  day  of  judgment,  at 
which  time  it  is  to  cease.  Thirdly,  the  apostle  applies  the  fire 
of  which  he  speaks  to  the  works  of  men.  But  the  Church  of 
Rome  applies  her  purgatorial  fires  to  the  souls  themselves. 
Fourthly,  the  effect  of  the  fire  mentioned  b)''  the  apostle  is  to 
burn  the  wood,  the  hay  and  the  stubble,  that  is,  to  consume 
the  vain  and  worthless  doings  of  the  earthly  minded,  the  hol- 
low pretences  of  our  own  imaginary  zeal  or  orthodoxy,  as  well 
as  all  the  superstitious  inventions  which  Christians  may  have 
built  upon  the  true  foundation  of  Christ.  But  the  purgatorial 
fire  of  \the  Church  of  Rome  is  designed  to  torture^  not  to  con- 
sume. And  lastly,  the  effect  of  the  fire  of  which  the  apostle 
warns  us,  depends  upon  the  quality  of  our  own  works,  but  the 
fire  of  purgatory  is  influenced,  according  to  the  Church  of 
Rome,  not  by  our  own  works,  but  by  the  works  of  others;  for 
while  the  departed  soul  is  perfectly  incapable  of  doing  any 
thing  to  help  himself,  the  Church  on  earth  can  assist  him,  by 
masses  and  prayers,  and  the  pope  is  able  to  relieve  him  en- 
tirely, by  the  application  of  the  treasure  of  the  Church;  so  that 
the  merits  of  the  saints,  united  to  the  superfluous  merits  of  Christ, 
shall  straightway  bring  him  to  the  mansions  of  glory.  We 
see,  therefore,  brethren,  that  it  is  not  possible,  by  any  fair  in- 
terpretation, to  suppose  that  the  apostle,  in  this  passage,  alluded 
to  the  doctrine  long  afterwards  introduced,  and  finally  used  for 
so  many  important  purposes  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  The 
truth  is  that  this  celebrated  text  is  probably  descriptive  of  the 
divine  judgment.  "Our  God,"  saith  the  same  apostle  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "is  a  consuming  fire."  "He  shall 
sit,"  saith  the  prophet  Malachi,  "  like  a  refiner's  fire  and  like 
fuller's  soap :"  (Mai.  iii.  2.)  the  fire  representing  the  con- 
suming of  what  should  be  destroyed,  the  soap  representing  the 
cleansing  of  what  should  remain.  Again  :  "  Are  not  my  words 
as  a  fire,"  saith  the  Lord  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah,   (xxiii.  29.) 


312  DOCTRINE    OF    PURGATORY 

And  the  day  of  judgment  is  always  presented  in  this  con- 
nexion; St.  Peter  declaring,  that  "the  earth  and  the  works 
that  are  therein  shall  be  burnt  up;"  (2  Pet.  iii.  10)  and  St. 
Paul,  that  "the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  in  a  flame  of  fire, 
giving  vengeance  to  them  who  know  not  God."  (2  Thes.  i. 
8.)  How  clear  and  consistent,  therefore,  is  the  interpretation 
which  is  suggested  by  these  and  similar  passages,  that  the  fiery 
judgment  of  the  great  day  shall  burn  all  the  earthly  works, 
and  thoughts,  and  inventions  of  Christians,  which,  like  so  much 
wood,  hay  and  stubble,  they  shall  have  foolishly  and  sinfully 
built  upon  the  foundation  of  Jesus  Christ;  while,  nevertheless, 
if  they  have  held  that  sure  foundation,  they  shall  be  saved,  yet 
so  as  by  fire,  like  brands  plucked  from  the  burning.  And  on 
the  other  hand,  that  those  who  have  built  upon  that  foundation, 
gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  that  is,  who  have  laid  up  their 
treasures  in  heaven,  and  honoured  the  Lord  with  all  their  fa- 
culties, and  means,  and  powers,  shall  receive  a  reward,  and 
shall  shine  as  the  stars  for  ever.  For  there  is,  doubtless,  an 
ascending  and  a  descending  scale  prepared  for  the  tremendous 
and  glorious  manifestations  of  that  awful  day,  by  which  the 
happiness  of  the  redeemed  and  the  misery  of  the  lost  will  be 
graduated  with  the  utmost  precision.  "In  my  Father's  house," 
saith  Christ,  "are  many  mansions."  And  "one  star  differeth 
from  another  star,"  saith  St.  Paul,  "  in  glory." 

Seeing,  then,  brethren,  that  the  passages  cited  by  the  Church 
of  Rome  from  the  Word  of  God,  when  fairly  examined,  lend 
no  support  whatever  to  her  doctrine  of  purgatory,  let  us  turn 
to  the  positive  testimony  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  in  our  text; 
where,  speaking  on  the  very  point,  in  the  beautiful  and  most 
instructive  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  he  describes 
to  us  two  states  for  the  departed  soul,  and  two  only.  "For  it 
came  to  pass,"  saith  our  Lord,  "  that  the  beggar  died,  and  was 
carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom.  And  the  rich 
man  also  died,  and  was  buried  in  hell.     And  lifting  up  his 


CONTRARY    TO    SCRIPTURE.  313 

eyes  when  he  was  in  torments,  he  saw  Abraham  afar  off,  and 
Lazarus  in  his  bosom."  Here  we  have  paradise  on  the  one 
hand,  with  the  spirits  of  the  just,  in  peace,  in  comfort,  and  in 
joyful  expectation  of  the  day  of  glory.  And  hell  upon  the 
other  hand,  with  the  spirits  of  the  lost,  the  unbelieving,  the 
earthly,  the  sensual,  the  proud,  who  cared  for  nothing  but  to 
be  clad  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  and  fare  sumptuously  every 
day.  But  our  Lord  tells  us  nothing  of  purgatory,  although 
the  Church  of  Rome  pronounces  her  anathema  upon  us,  for 
not  believing  it.  Ah,  brethren!  when  he  shall  come  again, 
in  flaming  fire,  to  take  vengeance  on  his  enemies,  shall  we 
have  any  cause  to  fear  his  censure,  because  we  rested  our 
faith  upon  his  own  Word,  refusing  either  to  add  to  it,  or  to  take 
away?  I  trow  not. 

But  we  must  release  you  now,  from  any  farther  discussion 
of  these  important  articles  of  the  Roman  Catholic  creed.  The 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  and  the  history  of  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  purgatory  and  indulgences,  together  with  the  position 
in  which  the  doctrines  stand  at  the  present  day,  must  be  post- 
poned until  our  next  lecture.  Meanwhile,  beloved  brethren, 
let  us  increase  in  the  ardour  and  constancy  of  our  prayers,  if 
not  for  the  dead,  who  need  them  not,  yet  for  the  living  who  are 
still  in  the  flesh,  surrounded  by  temptation.  And  especially  on 
behalf  of  the  Universal  or  Catholic  Church,  let  us  earnestly 
beseech  the  God  of  all  grace  to  hasten  the  time,  when  his  own 
perfect  and  unerring  Word  shall  be  the  only  standard  of  faith 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Christendom;  when  truth, 
and  unity,  and  peace,  and  love,  shall  break  down  every  par- 
tition wall  of  heresy  and  schism,  and  the. whole  host  of  his  now 
divided  and  contending  followers  shall  realize  the  blessedness 
of  being  but  one  fold,  under  the  one  divine  Shepherd  of 
Israel. 


2e 


LECTURE  XIV. 


Luke  xvi.  22,  23. — And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  beggar  died,  and  he 
was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom.  And  the  rich 
man  also  died,  and  he  was  buried  in  hell.  And  lifting  up  his  eyes 
when  he  was  in  torments,  he  saw  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in 
his  bosom.     (Doway  version.) 


Our  last  lecture,  beloved  brethren,  was  devoted  to  the 
examination  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  in  connexion  with 
the  theory  of  satisfaction  to  the  temporal  justice  of  God,  and 
the  prerogative  of  discharging  the  soul  of  the  departed  believer 
from  this  debt  of  justice,  which  the  Church  of  Rome  asserts  in 
the  granting  of  indulgences.  A  brief  recapitulation  of  the 
heads  of  that  lecture  may  be  necessary,  in  order  to  refresh 
your  memory,  and  to  enable  me  to  resume  the  line  of  argu- 
ment and  evidence  which  was  then  commenced,  and  which  I 
purpose  to  complete  on  the  present  occasion. 

You  will  bear  in  mind,  then,  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
teaches  the  necessity  of  satisfying  the  justice  of  the  Almighty, 
with  respect  to  a  certain  measure  of  punishment,  which,  ac- 
cording to  their  doctrine,  continues  due  in  this  life,  after  a  full 
forgiveness  of  our  sin  has  been  obtained  through  the  atone- 
ment and  merits  of  Christ  Jesus;  for  although  they  allow  that 
the  application  of  this  atonement  remits  the  eternal  penalty  of 
sin,  yet  they  contend  that  there  is  a  temporal  penalty  besides, 
which  must  be  paid  by  the  sinner  himself,  or  by  the  Church 


RECAPITULATION.  315 

for  him.  The  mode  of  rendering  satisfaction  for  this  debt  of 
temporal  justice,  according  to  their  creed,  is  by  penitential 
works,  fasting,  mortification,  alms-deeds,  and  prayers.  And 
all  the  trials  and  afflictions  of  the  present  life  are  supposed  to 
be  available  to  the  same  purpose.  But  if  the  Christian  departs 
without  having  fully  paid  the  amount  of  penance  and  suffering 
which  this  debt  of  temporal  justice  requires,  his  soul  must  be 
tormented  in  the  fire  of  purgatory  until  satisfaction  is  com- 
pletely rendered.  They  hold,  however,  that  the  Church  has 
an  inexhaustible  treasury  of  merits,  which  can  be  so  applied  as 
to  extinguish  this  claim  of  God's  temporal  justice;  and  thus 
either  shorten  the  suflferings  of  the  soul  in  purgatory,  or  relieve 
it  altogether.  This  treasury  consists  of  the  superfluous  merits 
and  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  of  the  saints:  and  thus  the  devo- 
tions, and  masses,  and  offerings  for  the  dead,  operate  with  more 
or  less  efficacy  upon  these  purgatorial  punishments.  While 
the  pope  has  the  most  unlimited  power,  by  his  indulgence,  to 
give  the  suflfering  soul  the  benefit  of  a  satisfaction  either  for  a 
part,  or  for  the  whole :  the  partial  satisfaction,  amounting  to  an 
acquittance  of  so  many  days,  or  months,  or  years,  of  the  allotted 
period  of  torment ;  and  the  total  satisfaction,  which  they  call 
a  plenary  indulgence,  being  available  to  cancel  the  entire  debt, 
and  transfer  the  soul  to  heaven. 

The  passages  of  Scripture  alleged  as  proving  these  doc- 
trines, brethren,  I  considered  at  large;  and  showed,  as  I  trust, 
sufficiently,  that  none  of  them  could  be  truly  interpreted  in 
their  favour;  that  a  portion  of  them  were  quite  irrelevant,  and 
that  others  taught  the  very  contrary.  I  then  cited  the  text  which, 
you  are  aware,  forms  a  part  of  the  narrative  of  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus ;  and  stated,  upon  the  authority  of  our  blessed 
Redeemer,  that  there  were  but  two  conditions  for  the  disem- 
bodied spirit;  that  of  torment,  with  the  lost,  or  that  of  refresh- 
ment, peace,  and  happiness  with  the  redeemed,  in  the  bosom 
of  Abraham.    I  also  endeavoured  to  explain  the  true  design  and 


316  ARGUMENT  FOR  PURGATORY 

character  of  our  earthly  afflictions  and  trials,  in  order  to  prove 
that  they  were  not  in  the  nature  of  penal  satisfaction  in  any 
case,  but  rather  in  that  of  a  kind  and  paternal  discipline,  for 
the  purpose  of  instructing  us  in  the  knowledge  of  ourselves, 
and  in  the  character  of  that  holiness  without  which  none  can 
see  the  Lord ;  weaning  us  from  the  love  of  earth  and  earthly 
things,  and  enabling  us  to  realize  the  truth,  that  we  are  pil- 
grims and  strangers  here,  whose  hearts  should  be  set  upon 
our  eternal  home  in  heaven.  It  was  left  for  the  following  dis- 
course to  complete  this  part  of  our  discussion,  by  examining 
the  next  branch  of  the  evidence  on  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
relies,  namely,  that  of  the  ancient  fathers;  and  by  stating  the 
history  and  progress  of  these  doctrines  prior  to  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  their  condition  and  influence  in  our  own  day.  That 
1  may  do  this  with  the  greater  perspicuity,  I  shall  first  notice 
the  inference  which  they  draw  from  the  ancient  custom  of 
praying  for  the  dead ;  next,  their  popular  argument  founded 
upon  the  use  and  necessity  of  an  intermediate  state;  thirdly, 
the  authority  of  the  fathers;  and  fourthly,  the  statements  of  the 
modern  champions  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  together  with  the 
present  position  of  the  whole  question. 

First,  then,  we  are  to  notice  the  inference  which  they  draw 
from  the  fact,  that  the  ancient  Church  always  included  a  prayer 
for  the  departed  in  their  liturgies,  so  that  it  was  a  regular  part 
of  the  communion  service.  It  also  appears  to  have  been  the 
usage  of  the  Jews;  and  from  the  history  of  the  Maccabees, 
which  is  supposed  to  be  a  true  history,  although  not  a  part  of 
the  inspired  and  canonical  Scriptures,  this  custom  seems  to 
have  existed  a  considerable  time  before  our  Saviour's  advent. 
Let  these  facts  be  granted  therefore,  since  the  evidence  is  cer- 
tainly in  their  favour.  But  the  inference  derived  from  them 
by  the  Church  of  Rome  is  altogether  a  different  matter.  For 
they  argue,  ingeniously  enough,  that  unless  the  departed  soul 
were  supposed  to  be  in  a  suffering  state,  there  was  no  occasion 


DERIVED  FROM  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.      317 

for  such  prayers,  nor  could  there  be  any  possible  use  in  offering 
them ;  and  hence,  concluding  that  the  practice  of  praying  for 
the  dead  must  have  grown  out  of  the  belief  that  their  souls 
were  in  purgatory,  they  claim  the  benefit  of  all  the  proof  which 
can  be  adduced  in  favour  of  the  one,  as  being  equally  conclu- 
sive in  favour  of  the  other. 

In  this,  however,  as  it  appears  to  me,  they  commit  an  egre- 
gious mistake,  since  their  whole  argument  turns  upon  the  erro- 
neous position,  that  there  can  be  but  one  reason  for  praying  on 
behalf  of  another,  namely,  because  he  is  in  a  state  of  suffering 
from  which  we  desire  him  to  be  relieved.  Now,  if  this  position 
be  true,  as  respects  prayer  for  the  dead,  it  must  be  equally 
true  as  respects  prayers  for  the  living  ;  and  therefore  we  should 
not  offer  prayers  for  any  of  our  brethren  on  earth,  unless  we 
believed  them  to  be  in  a  state  of  torment.  But  no  allegation 
can  be  more  absurd  than  this.  The  first  great  reason  why  we 
pray  for  others,  is  the  imperative  one,  because  it  is  a  part  of 
the  divine  commandment;  and  when  we  come  to  discuss  the 
subordinate  reasons  which  may  be  assigned  for  it,  we  find  that 
they  are  various.  One  reason,  indeed,  accords  with  the  Roman 
hypothesis,  that  our  prayers,  through  the  mercy  of  God,  may 
relieve  the  subjects  of  them  from  pain  and  danger.  Thus  saith 
the  apostle  James:  "Is  any  sick  among  you?  Let  him  call  for 
the  elders  of  the  Church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing 
him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  the  prayer  of  faith 
shall  save  the  sick,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up,  and  if  he 
have  committed  sins  they  shall  be  forgiven  him."  And  St.  John 
saith,  "  If  any  one  see  his  brother  sin  a  sin  which  is  not  unto 
death,  let  him  ask,  (or  pray)  and  life  shall  be  given  to  him." 
Here  is  the  principle  which  approaches  most  nearly  to  the  ar- 
gument of  the  Church  of  Rome,  because  it  contemplates  the 
benefit  obtained  by  our  prayers  for  those  who  are  suffering  un- 
der pain,  and  the  consequences  of  sin.  But  there  is  a  very 
different  kind  of  benefit  suggested  by  St.  Paul,  where  he  tells 
2  E  2 


818  ARGUMENT  FOR  PURGATORY 

the  Ephesians  to  persevere  in  prayer  and  supplication  for  all 
the  saints,  (Eph.  vi.  19,  20,)  and  for  me,"  saith  he,  especially, 
"that  speech  may  be  given  me,  that  I  may  open  my  mouth 
with  confidence,  to  niake  known  the  mystery  of  the  Gospel,— so 
that  therein  I  may  be  bold  to  speak,  according  as  I  ought."  Here 
we  perceive  another  sort  of  advantage  expected  from  prayer ; — 
not  a  relief  from  suffering,  but  an  increase  of  ministerial  graces. 
Thus  far,  therefore,  we  have  plainly  set  before  us  three  rea- 
sons for  this  duty :  First,  because  it  is  the  will  of  God ;  second- 
ly, because  our  brethren  are  in  affliction;  and  thirdly  and 
chiefly,  because  their  condition  admits  of  an  increase  in  holi- 
ness, in  zeal,  or  in  felicity.  Now,  of  these  three  reasons,  one 
only  can  possibly  be  applied  to  the  doctrine  of  purgatory ;  and 
we  shall  see  presently,  when  we  examine  the  sort  of  prayers 
which  the  ancient  Church  offered  for  the  departed,  that  they 
will  not  accord  so  well  with  this  as  with  the  others. 

There  is,  however,  a  fourth  reason  why  we  should  pray  for 
our  brethren,  quite  independent  of  any  benefit  which  they  may 
derive  from  our  prayers;  and  this  is,  because,  by  such  prayers, 
we  cherish  and  increase,  in  our  own  souls,  the  graces  of  faith, 
hope,  and  charity.  Our  faith  is  increased,  because  we  are 
reminded  of  the  promises  of  that  blessed  Gospel  which  binds 
the  whole  Church  to  Christ,  and  connects  our  individual  salva- 
tion with  the  accomplishment  of  the  stupendous  plan,  which 
shall  bring  myriads  to  everlasting  glory.  Our  hope  is  in- 
creased, because  the  very  act  of  praying  for  the  various  por- 
tions of  the  universal  Church,  strengthens  our  longing  for  that 
communion  of  saints,  which  shall  be  perfected  in  the  world  to 
come,  although  here,  it  is  liable  to  such  constant  interruption, 
and  is,  at  best,  so  poorly  realized.  And  it  increases,  above 
all,  our  charity,  or  love  to  the  brethren,  because  the  act  of 
prayer  for  them  enkindles  our  spiritual  affections  on  their  be- 
half, and  draws  our  souls  towards  them  in  the  temper  and  dis- 
position, which  is  our  best  preparative  for  heaven.     Here  then, 


DERIVED  FROM  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD.      319 

we  have  a  most  important  reason  for  the  precept  to  pray  for 
each  other,  which  regards  chiefly  the  progress  of  our  own 
sanctification  ;  so  that  of  the  four  motives  assignable  for  such 
prayers,  we  perceive  one  only  which  can  be  made  at  all  sub- 
servient to  the  Roman  hypothesis,  while  the  other  three  con- 
tinue in  full  force,  without  the  possibility  of  linking  them  to 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  In  speaking  thus,  however,  you 
will  not  understand  me,  I  trust,  as  being  an  advocate  for  the 
practice  of  the  ancient  Church  in  this  particular.  The  princi- 
ple I  have  so  often  had  occasion  to  set  before  you  in  religion, 
is  to  look  for  all  truth  in  the  written  Word  of  God,  as  the  law, 
and  to  take  the  primitive  Church  as  the  best  expounder  or 
judge  of  the  sense  of  Scripture.  But  when  the  Scripture  is 
perfectly  silent,  and  neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in  the 
New,  can  a  single  authoritative  sentence  be  found  in  favour  of  a 
practice,  which  appears,  at  best,  to  be  of  doubtful  expediency, 
I  have  no  idea  of  tying  our  faith  to  the  custom  of  the  ancient 
Church,  as  being  a  sufficient  substitute  for  the  Bible.  For  even 
with  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  we  must  distinguish 
carefully  between  the  ancient  and  the  primitive  Christians,  in 
an  argument  where  we  have  no  Scripture  to  guide  us:  and  we 
must  remember,  especially,  that  none  of  the  primitive  liturgies 
have  come  down  to  us  without  many  additions;  that  they  were 
not  published  until  the  fifth  century  ;  that  although  all  the 
Churches  had  liturgies,  without  any  exception,  and  these  were 
in  harmony,  as  respected  their  principal  parts,  yet  they  differed 
considerably  in  their  details,  and  that  the  earlier  were  confess- 
edly the  more  simple.*  Hence,  while  I  fully  approve  the  wis- 
dom of  our  Reformers,  who  neither  retained  the  prayers  for  the 
departed  in  our  liturgy,  on  the  one  hand,  nor  pronounced  any 
censure  upon  the  ancient  Church  for  using  them,  on  the  other, 
I  desire  to  show  you  that  the  very  ground  on  which  the  Church 

*  See  Toutt6e,  Preface  to  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  23.  Cat.  p.  323-4. 


320  PRAYERS    FOR    THE    DEAD 

of  Rome  rests  her  argument,  can  avail  her  nothing;  and  that 
such  prayers,  however  unauthorized  and  inexpedient  they  may 
have  been,  might  have  been  tolerated  for  reasons  totally  dis- 
tinct from  the  doctrine  of  purgatory. 

That  you  may  distinctly  see  how  far  the  ancient  Church 
seems  to  have  carried  the  practice  of  praying  for  the  departed, 
I  shall  now  present  to  you  an  extract  from  the  Alexandrian 
liturgy,  which  bears  the  name  of  the  celebrated  Basil,  bishop 
of  Cesarea,  and  is  printed  with  his  works,  although  it  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  of  a  later  day.  (Basil,  Op.  Tom.  II.  676-80.) 

First,  we  meet  with  it  in  the  prayer  which  preceded  the  kiss 
of  peace,  where  the  officiating  priest,  speaking  in  reference  to 
the  symbols  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  saith,  "Receive,  O 
Lord,  these  holy  gifts  from  our  hands,  although  we  are  sinners, 
through  thy  goodness;  and  grant  that  they  may  be  accepted, 
and  sanctified  by  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  the  expiation  of  our  sins, 
and  the  ignorances  of  thy  people,  and  to  the  rest  of  those  souls 
who  have  departed  this  lifey 

The  second  appearance  of  the  practice  is  much  more  in  de- 
tail, and  immediately  preceded  the  diptychs,  or  sacred  lists  of 
the  departed  saints,  which  were  constantly,  in  those  days,  read 
at  the  altar.     The  language  is  as  follows: 

"  Remember,  O  Lord,  those  who  now  offer  these  precious  gifts 
to  thee,  and  those  from  whom,  on  account  of  whom,  and  through 
whom,  they  have  been  brought  in.  Grant  unto  them  all,  their 
heavenly  reward ;  and  according  to  the  precept  of  thine  only 
begotten  Son,  make  us  to  communicate  in  the  memory  of  the 
saints.  Vouchsafe,  O  Lord,  to  remember  those,  who  from  the 
beginning,  have  pleased  thee,  the  holy  fathers,  patriarchs, 
apostles,  prophets,  preachers,  evangelists,  martyrs,  confessors, 
and  every  righteous  soul  who  has  finished  his  course  in  the 
faith  of  Christ." 

"Chiefly  the  most  holy,  most  glorious,  immaculate,  and 
most  blessed  Mary,  the  ever  virgin  mother  of  God." 


IN  THE  ALEXANDRIAN  LITURGY.  321 

"The  holy  and  glorious  prophet,  precursor,  and  martyr, 
John  the  Baptist." 

"The  holy  Stephen,  the  first  of  the  deacons  and  the  first  of 
the  martyrs." 

"  Our  holy  and  blessed  father,  Mark,  the  apostle  and  evan- 
gelist, and  our  holy  and  wonder-working  father  Basil." 

"The  holy  saint,  (N.)  whose  memory  we  celebrate  this 
day,  and  the  whole  company  of  thy  saints,  by  whose  prayers 
and  intercessions  also  we  pray  thee  to  have  mercy  upon  us, 
and  save  us  for  the  sake  of  thy  holy  name  which  is  invoked 
upon  us." 

Here  the  deacon  reads  the  diptychs,  that  is,  the  lists  of  the 
departed  faithful;  and  then  the  priest  proceeds  with  the  fol- 
lowing prayer: 

"In  like  manner,  O  Lord,  remember  all  of  the  priesthood 
who  have  gone  before,  and  those  who  were  of  the  laity. 
Grant  that  all  their  souls  may  rest  in  the  bosoms  of  our  holy 
fathers  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  Lead  and  gather  them  to- 
gether in  the  green  pastures,  upon  the  river  of  rest,  in  the 
paradise  of  pleasure,  from  whence  grief,  sorrow,  and  sighing, 
shall  flee  away  in  the  light  of  thy  holy  ones." 

"And  to  those,  O  Lord,  whose  souls  thou  hast  received, 
grant  rest  therein,  and  vouchsafe  to  transfer  them  into  the 
kingdom  of  the  heavens.  And  preserve  us  who  are  still  in 
this  world,  in  thy  faith,  and  lead  us  to  thy  heavenly  kingdom  ; 
granting  to  us  thy  peace  at  all  times,  so  that,  together  with 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  thy  most  holy,  glorious,  and 
blessed  name  may  be  glorified,  exalted,  praised,  blessed  and 
hallowed,  now  and  for  ever." 

This  is  the  whole,  brethren,  of  the  Alexandrian  Liturgy, 
bearing  the  name  of  Basil,  in  which  there  is  any  reference  to 
the  saints,  and  to  the  departed.  And  I  must  beg  of  you  to 
observe  the  following  facts,  in  connexion  with  it. 

First,  you  perceive,  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to 


322  rURGATORY  DISPROVED 

the  idea  of  a  purgatory,  nor  the  least  intimation  that  the  de- 
parted souls  were  suffering  any  pain,  torment,  or  punishment 
whatever. 

Secondly,  you  perceive,  that  although  the  first  place  among 
the  saints  seems  clearly  to  be  granted  to  the  virgin  Mary,  by 
her  title,  the  mother  of  God,  yet  there  is  no  invocation  nor 
address  to  her. 

Thirdly,  that  although  it  is  assumed  that  the  virgin  and  the 
saints  offer  prayers  and  intercessions  for  the  Church,  yet  none 
of  them  are  asked  to  pray  for  us;  instead  of  which,  the  Church 
prays  for  them,  beseeching  God  to  remember  them ;  clearly 
proving,  that  even  so  late  as  the  fifth  century,  the  Church  of 
Christ  had  not  departed  so  far  from  the  primitive  purity  as  to 
offer  public  worship  to  the  saints. 

Fourthly,  that  the  very  same  supplication  which  is  offered 
for  these  most  eminent  saints,  namely,  that  God  would  remem- 
ber them,  is  likewise  offered  for  the  souls  of  all  the  faithful 
departed.  Hence  you  perceive,  that  if  simply  praying  for  them 
proves  that  the  Church  supposed  they  were  in  purgatory,  the 
virgin,  and  the  apostles,  and  all  the  most  eminent  martyrs, 
must  have  been  in  purgatory  too;  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
would  esteem,  as  well  as  ourselves,  to  be  a  most  extravagant 
absurdity. 

And  fifthly,  that  the  Church  plainly  held  our  doctrine  on  the 
state  of  the  departed,  that  is  to  say,  that  they  were  in  paradise 
with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  that  paradise  in  which  our 
Lord  promised  to  be  with  the  penitent  thief  in  the  day  of  his 
crucifixion,  and  in  which  he  represented  the  soul  of  Lazarus 
to  have  been  carried  by  the  angels;  a  place  of  rest  and  plea- 
sure, from  which  they  looked  forward  to  be  transferred  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  intended  for  their  eternal  habitation,  after 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  at  the  final  day.  Fairly  exa- 
mined, therefore,  nothing  can  more  fully  prove  the  novelty  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  doctrines,  on  the  subject  of  saint- worship 


BY   THE    ALEXANDRIAN    LITURGY.  323 

and  purgatory,  than  the  language  of  this  Liturgy,  although  it 
is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down 
to  us  is  considerably  different  from  that  which  it  exhibited  at 
an  earlier  period. 

The  most  plausible  argument,  however,  which  the  Church 
of  Rome  can  present  for  her  doctrine  of  purgatory,  is  that 
which  urges  the  necessity  of  some  intermediate  place  for  those 
who  are  indeed  Christian  believers,  but  who,  nevertheless,  die 
in  a  state  not  pure  nor  holy  enough  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
into  which  nothing  undefiled  can  be  allowed  to  enter.  And 
hence  they  sometimes  gain  assent  as  to  the  probability  of  a 
certain  measure  of  punishment,  in  order  to  complete  that  sanc- 
tification  which  was  left  imperfect  in  the  present  life.  Now  it 
may  well  be  granted,  that  such  an  intermediate  place  for  the 
departed  soul  is  necessary;  but  it  will  by  no  means  follow  that 
purgatory,  as  they  define  it,  is  calculated  for  the  purpose.  So 
far  from  it,  that  I  think  a  little  reflection  will  show  the  very 
reverse  of  such  a  conclusion.  For,  according  to  the  Scriptural 
account  of  the  happy  side  of  the  region  of  departed  spirits, 
it  is  a  paradise,  a  place  of  rest  and  refreshment,  inhabited  by 
all  the  holy  and  the  just  who  have  ever  lived  upon  the  earth, 
visited  by  the  angels,  and  even  by  Christ  himself;  while  yet  it 
is  in  sight  of  the  regions  of  the  lost,  from  which  it  is  separated 
by  an  impassable  gulf,  across  which,  however,  as  the  narra- 
tive of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  informs  us,  conversations 

may  be  held  together.    Suppose,  then,  the  soul  of  a  believer, 

such  an  one  as,  according  to  the  Roman  Catholic  system,  must 
be  consigned  to  the  excruciating  torments  of  purgatory,  up  to 
the  very  day  of  judgment, — suppose  him  to  depart  this  life, 
and  to  be  taken  to  this  holy  and  blessed  society;  having  indeed 
the  true  principle  of  faith,  but  yet  far  from  that  perfect  holi- 
ness which  is  necessary  for  the  judgment  day,  which,  I  ask,  is 
the  better  place  to  improve  and  sanctify  him?  the  purgatorial 
flames  of  excruciating  anguish,  or  the  peaceful  paradise  of  the 


324  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

spirits  of  the  just?  Surely  it  must  be  manifest,  that  the  mere 
suffering  of  agony  cannot  teach,  nor  sanctify,  nor  exalt  the 
thoughts  and  affections  of  the  sinner.  When  the  soul  of  the 
believer  leaves  the  body,  it  has  done  with  the  temptations  of 
the  fiesh,  with  the  assaults  of  Satan,  with  the  corrupt  allure- 
ments of  the  world.  Where  can  it  increase  its  holiness,  en- 
large its  divine  knowledge,  cherish  the  truth  of  God,  adore  his 
mercy  in  Christ,  and  thus  become  purified  from  all  the  stains 
and  defilements  of  its  earthly  course,  if  not  in  the  society  of 
patriarchs,  prophets  and  apostles,  with  the  spectacle  of  the  lost 
in  view,  the  glory  of  heaven  in  prospect,  and  every  motive  and 
stimulus  imaginable  to  help  it  forward,  that  it  may  be  ready  in 
the  great  day?  W^hile,  on  the  other  hand,  all  that  we  know  of 
the  effects  of  intense  suffering  is  directly  opposed  to  improve- 
ment. To  hurn  the  soul  into  goodness,  to  scorch  it  into  wis- 
dom, to  rack  it  into  knowledge,  to  torture  it  into  the  love  of 
God, — who  can  listen  to  such  a  proposition  without  a  mixture 
of  wonder  and  indignation  at  the  system,  which  talks  of  fire 
and  flames  as  the  means  of  spiritual  sanctification?  Most 
manifest  then,  it  seems,  to  my  mind,  that  the  whole  force  of 
this  most  plausible  argument  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  direct- 
ly hostile  to  their  purgatorial  theory;  although  it  might  well 
agree  with  the  account  which  Scripture  gives  us  of  the  place 
of  departed  spirits,  in  which  the  souls  of  the  redeemed  await 
the  day  of  resurrection. 

But  we  proceed,  secondly,  to  the  testimony  of  the  fathers, 
in  which  we  shall  see,  in  the  very  evidence  which  is  commonly 
adduced  to  sustain  this  invention,  a  clear  proof  that  it  was 
a  novelty,  unknown  to  the  purer  days  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity. 

Beginning  with  Irenceus,  the  bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  170,  we 
have  a  distinct  corroboration  of  the  true  doctrine.  "  Since, 
therefore,"  saith  he,  (Lib.  v.  Cont.  Hasr.  cap.  31,  p.  331,) 
"the  Lord  himself  obeyed  the  law  of  death,  that  he  might  be 


IREN.EUS  AND  TERTULLIAN.  325 

the  first  born  from  the  dead,  and  remained  until  the  third  day 
in  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,  and  afterwards  arose  in  the 
flesh,  so  that  he  showed  the  very  marks  of  the  nails  to  his  dis- 
ciples, and  thus  ascended  to  his  Father,  how  should  they  not 
be  confounded  that  say  that  these  lower  regions  are  only  this 
world,  according  to  the  present  bodily  state,  but  that  the  inter- 
nal man,  as  soon  as  it  leaves  the  body,  ascends  immediately  to 
heaven?  For  even  the  Lord  went  into  the  midst  of  the  shadow 
of  death,  where  the  souls  of  the  dead  were ;  and  afterwards 
rose  again  in  his  body,  and  after  his  resurrection  ascended  up 
to  heaven.  And  therefore  it  is  manifest  that  the  souls  of  his 
disciples,  for  whom  the  Lord  did  these  things,  will  likewise 
depart  into  the  invisible  place,  appropriated  to  them  by  the 
Deity,  and  will  there  remain  until  the  resurrection ;  expecting 
the  hour  when  they  shall  receive  their  bodies  again,  and  rising 
in  their  perfect  state,  that  is  corporeally,  as  the  Lord  himself 
arose,  will  thus  come  to  the  vision  of  God."  Here,  brethren, 
we  have  a  faithful  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  antiquity. 
Irenseus  believed  in  no  ascension  to  heaven  for  any  saint,  before 
the  day  of  resurrection,  and  no  purgatory  nor  punishment  for 
the  redeemed  in  the  place  of  departed  spirits ;  and  therefore  he 
did  not  agree,  in  either  point,  with  the  modern  innovations  of 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

Let  us  next  hear  Tertullian,  in  A.  D.  200,  on  the  same  sub- 
ject. 

"  Our  lower  regions,"  saith  he,  (De  Anima,  p.  303)  speaking 
in  reference  to  the  notions  of  the  heathen  philosophers,  "  are 
not  a  naked  cavity,  nor  yet  a  certain  drain  of  the  world  under 
the  waters;  but  they  are  a  profound  and  vast  space,  in  the  in- 
most bowels  of  the  earth.  Therefore  we  read  that  Christ  was 
in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  during  the  three  days  of  his  death, 
that  is  in  the  internal  recess,  enclosed  within  its  lower  abysses. 
But  if  Christ  our  God,  because  he  was  also  man,  being  dead 
and  buried  according  to  the  Scriptures,  satisfied  also  this  law, 
2  F 


326  ORIGE^'s     IDEA 

according  to  the  rule  of  human  death,  amongst  these  lower 
regions,  and  did  not  ascend  to  the  highest  heavens,  until  he 
had  first  descended  to  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth,  in  order 
that  he  might  make  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  his  compa- 
nions, you  must  needs  believe  that  these  regions  are  subterra- 
nean, and  drive  far  from  you  those  who  proudly  imagine  that 
the  souls  of  the  faithful  are  not  to  enter  these  lower  regions; 
thus  placing  the  servants  above  their  Lord,  and  the  disciples 
above  their  Master,  and  despising  the  privilege  of  Abraham's 
bosom,  where  they  might  enjoy  the  consolation  of  looking  for- 
ward to  the  resurrection. — For  not  yet  has  the  trump  of  the 
archangel  been  heard,  not  yet  has  our  Lord  come  to  meet  us  in 
the  air,  along  with  those  who  shall  first  arise  at  his  advent. 
Heaven  is  discovered  to  none  as  yet,  the  earth  is  still  shut  up ; 
nor  will  the  heavens  be  opened  until  the  world  passeth  away. 

Into  these  lower  regions  therefore,"  saith  Tertullian  in 

another  place,  "all  souls  are  taken.  And  there  are  both  pun- 
ishments and  pleasures,  as  you  read  in  the  parable  of  the  rich 
man  and  the  beggar."  (P.  306.) 

In  this  passage,  brethren,  we  have  another  very  clear  proof 
of  the  ancient  faith  upon  this  interesting  subject,  perfectly  in- 
consistent with  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  the  supposed 
assumption  into  heaven  of  the  virgin  and  the  saints.  Else- 
where, indeed,  Tertullian  allows  this  distinction  to  the  martyrs; 
but  to  all  others  he  applies  the  rule  you  have  heard,  that  the 
place  of  departed  spirits  must  be  the  habitation  of  the  soul,  until 
the  resurrection. 

Next  to  Tertullian,  we  shall  present  the  testimony  of  Ori- 
gen,  which  th^  Church  of  Rome  claims  as  being  in  her  favour, 
but  not  by  right.  The  passage  is  as  follows :  (Orig.  in  Jer. 
Horn.  1,  p.  67,)  "If  any  one  shall  preserve  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  communicates  in  the  first  resurrection. 
But  if  any  one  is  kept  until  the  second  resurrection,  he  is  a 
sinner,  who  needs  the  baptism  of  fire,  and  is  purified  by  burn- 


OF    PURGATORY.  327 

ing,  that  the  fire  may  consume  whatever  he  may  have  of  the 
wood,  hay  and  stubble.  Wherefore,  as  we  perceive  that  such 
may  be  our  lot  atler  death,  let  us  be  diligent  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  lay  them  up  in  our  hearts,  and  strive  to 
live  according  to  their  precepts;  so  that  before  the  day  of  our 
departure,  if  possible,  we  may  be  cleansed  from  the  filth  of 
our  sins,  and  be  saved  together  with  the  saints  in  Christ 
Jesus." 

In  this  passage,  brethren,  we  have  the  earliest  intimation  of 
a  purgatorial  fire,  namely,  in  A.  D.  250,  from  a  writer  of 
great  reputation  for  learning,  genius  and  zeal,  but  yet  reputed 
by  the  Church  of  Rome  herself  to  be  full  of  heretical  notions. 
Whatever  the  soundness  or  unsoundness  of  his  opinion  might 
be,  however,  considered  in  itself,  it  will  be  sufficient  on  the 
present  occasion  to  show  you,  that  it  has  no  accordance  what- 
ever with  the  modern  form  of  the  Roman  doctrine.  For,  in 
the  first  place,  we  see  that  Origen's  fiery  purgation  is  express- 
ly referred  to  the  day  of  judgment,  consequently,  it  could  not 
be  the  purgatorial  fire  of  the  Roman  Church,  which  is  sup- 
posed to  last  until  that  day,  and  is  then  extinguished.  In  the 
second  place,  this  fire  of  Origen's  affects  not  only  the  soul,  but 
the  body  also,  being  after  the  resurrection.  But  the  Roman 
purgatory  torments  the  soul  alone.  Thirdly,  the  prevention 
proposed  by  Origen  is  to  lay  up  the  knowledge  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  live  according  to  their  precepts,  without  one  word 
of  penance,  mortification,  voluntary  sufferings,  or  indulgences. 
Whereas,  the  Church  of  Rome  discourages  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures  among  the  mass  of  her  people,  and  teaches  the  be- 
nefit of  penitential  works,  while  living,  and  indulgences  after 
death,  as  the  only  way  to  escape  purgatory.  And  lastly, 
Origen  contrasts  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  with  the  baptism  of 
fire;  contemplating  the  application  of  this  fire  as  a  quick  and 
powerful  product  of  the  judgment  day.  Whereas,  the  Church 
of  Rome  talks  of  the  agonies  of  purgatory  for  hundreds  and  thou- 


328  CYPKIAN    AND    JEROME. 

sands  of  years  together,  although  never  extending  them  beyond 
the  day  of  judgment.  Hence,  although  Origen  speaks  of  fire, 
and  of  purgation  after  death,  as  does  also  the  Church  of  Rome, 
yet  in  every  particular,  essential  to  the  Roman  doctrine,  they 
are  found  to  differ.  Indeed,  the  doctrine  of  Origen  would  not 
be  esteemed  worth  contending  about  on  their  part ;  nor,  pro- 
pounded merely  as  a  matter  of  speculative  interpretation,  as 
was  the  fact  in  his  case,  should  I  think  it  deserved  any  serious 
discussion  upon  ours. 

In  the  works  of  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  there  is  no- 
thing that  looks  in  the  least  like  the  modern  Roman  doctrine; 
but  on  the  other  hand  we  find  him  declaring,  in  more  than  one 
place,  that  "  no  satisfaction  can  be  rendered  for  sin,  after  the 
present  life."  (Cyp.  De  Lapsis.  §  14.  De  El.  et  Bon.  Op.  §  2.) 
Whereas,  it  is  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic system,  that  satisfaction  can  be  made  to  the  justice  of  God, 
so  far  as  its  temporal  claims  are  concerned,  as  well  after  death 
as  before,  by  masses,  alms,  prayers,  and  penances,  performed 
by  the  Church  on  behalf  of  the  departed,  and  especially  by 
indulgences. 

The  numerous  writings  of  the  celebrated  Jerome  belong  to 
a  much  later  period  of  the  Church,  and  yet  even  these  do  not 
furnish  any  sanction  for  the  purgatorial  doctrine.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  lays  down  the  principle,  in  his  commentary  on  St. 
Matthew,  (Tom.  4.  p.  26)  "  that  the  soul  will  be  punished,  and 
will  feel  its  sufferings,  when  it  shall  have  received  its  former 
body,  in  order  that  the  companion  of  its  sin  may  also  be  the 
companion  of  its  punishment."  And  on  the  famous  text  of  St. 
Paul,  which,  in  our  last  lecture  we  found  Dr.  Wiseman  press- 
ing into  the  service  of  purgatory,  the  explanation  of  Jerome  is 
explicitly  hostile  to  the  Roman  creed,  (Tom.  4.  p.  244)  for  he 
asserts  the  destruction  of  the  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  which 
any  one  may  build  upon  the  foundation  of  Christ,  while  he 
himself  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire,  to  be  the  work  of  the 


AMBROSE    AND    AUGUSTIN.  329 

day  of  judgment;  and  thus  excludes,  by  necessary  implication, 
the  whole  purgatorial  theory. 

The  language  of  Ambrose,  the  bishop  of  Milan,  is  equally 
irreconcilable  with  the  Roman  system.  "  Death,"  saith  this 
eminent  father,  "  is  the  separation  of  the  soul  and  the  body  ; 
but  this  dissolution  is  not  evil,  because  to  be  dissolved  and  be 
with  Christ  is  far  better. — The  Scripture  calls  death  sleep, 
according  to  that  passage:  Our  friend  Lazarus  sleepeth,  I  go 
that  I  may  waken  him.  But  sleep  is  good,  because  it  is  rest, 
as  saith  the  Scripture,  I  laid  me  down  and  took  my  rest,  I 
rose  up.  for  the  Lord  sustained  me.  Sweet,  therefore,  is  the 
sleep  of  death.  But  at  length  the  Lord  wakens  those  who  are 
thus  resting,  because  the  Lord  is  the  resurrection."  (Tom. 
1.  p.  404.) 

And  again,  this  eminent  father  delivers  the  following  animat- 
ing exhortation.  (lb.  411.)  "Let  us  fearlessly  go  to  our 
Redeemer  Jesus;  fearlessly  to  the  assembly  of  the  patriarchs; 
fearlessly  let  us  depart  to  our  father  Abraham,  when  the  day 
approaches;  fearlessly  let  us  proceed  to  the  congregation  of 
the  saints,  to  the  convention  of  the  righteous.  For  then  we 
shall  go  to  our  fathers,  we  shall  go  to  our  instructors  in  the 
faith,  and  although  our  works  may  be  deficient,  faith  will  as- 
sist, that  our  inheritance  may  be  preserved  to  us.  We  shall  go 
wiiere  the  holy  Abraham  opens  his  bosom,  in  order  that  he 
may  receive  the  poor,  even  as  he  received  Lazarus,  in  whose 
bosom  they  repose,  who  in  this  life  endured  calamity  and  sor- 
row." Here,  brethren,  we  have  another  plain  declaration  of 
the  Scriptural  doctrine,  without  one  word  that  even  leans  to- 
wards the  modern  creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

We  come  now,  however,  to  a  witness  on  whose  testimony 
they  place  great  reliance,  namely,  the  scholar  of  Ambrose,  the 
distinguished  Augustin,  in  some  of  whose  very  numerous  works 
there  are  considerable  approximations  to  their  system,  which 
are,  nevertheless,  more  than  neutralized,  when  we  look  at  the 

2  f3 


330  augustin's  doctrine 

whole.     I  shall  give  you  a  specimen  of  both  sorts  of  passages 
from  this  author. 

"  Some  there  are,"  saith  he,  "  who  suffer  temporal  punish- 
.ments  in  this  life  only,  some  after  death,  and  some  both  now 
and  then,  but  previous  to  that  last  and  most  severe  judgment. 
But  all  who  suffer  temporal  punishments  after  death,  do  not 
become  subject  to  eternal  punishment.  For  to  some,  what  is 
not  remitted  in  this  life,  is  rejnitted  in  the  next,  in  order  that 
they  may  not  be  punished  eternally."  (Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei, 
Lib.  21,  Cap.  13,  p.  1432.)  Now  this  looks  very  like  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  yet  opposes  it  in  two 
most  important  particulars.  First,  that  Augustin  speaks  of 
sin  being  remitted  after  death,  which  they  positively  deny; 
for  according  to  their  system,  the  remission  of  the  sin  must 
take  place  in  the  present  life,  and  the  temporal  pains  of  purga- 
tory cannot  be  remitted,  but  must  heiwe  full  payment,  either  in 
the  sufferings  of  the  soul,  or  in  an  equivalent  amount  of  the 
merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints,  placed  to  his  credit  by  the 
Church,  and  especially  by  indulgences.  The  difference  between 
them  is  precisely  the  same  as  there  is  between  the  forgiving 
a  debt,  and  the  paying  it;  so  that  the  opinion  of  Augustin 
would  now  be  heresy  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Secondly,  Augustin  does  not  say  one  word  about  this  Roman 
doctrine  of  satisfaction,  nor  the  treasure  of  the  Church  from 
which  this  satisfaction  is  made,  nor  of  the  pope's  authority  in 
making  it:  in  all  which  respects  he  would  be  regarded  as 
heretical  as  ourselves.  But  now  let  me  proceed  to  show,  by 
other  passages,  hov/  Augustin  expressed  himself  in  reference 
to  the  opinion  we  have  quoted;  and  we  shall  see  most  clearly 
that  in  his  days,  the  doctrine  now  maintained  was  neither  set- 
tled nor  received  by  the  Church.* 

"  It  is  not  to  be  doubted,"  saith  he,  "  that  the  dead  are  aided 

*  See  the  whole  of  Augustin  to  Evodius,  vol.  II.  p.  436. 


OF    THE    INTERMEDIATE    STATE.  331 

by  the  prayers  of  the  holy  Church,  by  the  saUitary  sacrifice, 
and  by  alms-deeds  offered  for  their  souls,  that  the  Lord  may 
deal  with  them  more  mercifully  than  their  sins  have  deserved. 
For  this  custom  delivered  by  the  fathers,  the  whole  Church 
observes ;  that  for  those  who  are  deceased  in  the  communion 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  when  they  are  commemo- 
rated in  their  place  at  that  sacrament,  prayer  is  made,  and  the 
sacrament  is  also  offered.  It  is  therefore  not  to  be  disputed 
that  these  things  are  profitable  to  the  deceased,  but  only  to 
those  who  have  so  lived  before  death,  that  such  services  can 
profit  them  after  death.  For  as  to  those  who  have  departed 
this  life  without  the  faith  which  worketh  by  love,  and  its  sacra- 
ments, these  offices  of  piety  are  useless ;  since,  while  living,  they 
received  not  the  grace  of  God,  or  received  it  in  vain,  and  thus 
laid  up  for  themselves  wrath  instead  of  mercy.  Hence,  no 
new  merits  are  provided  for  the  dead,  when  their  pious 
friends  perform  any  thing  on  their  behalf,  but  only  the  fruits 
consequent  upon  their  own  previous  lives  are  rendered  to  them. 
For  nothing  is  effected,  unless  they  had  lived  so  that  these  ser- 
vices might  profit  them  when  they  should  have  departed.  And 
thus  no  one  can  receive  after  death  any  thing  but  what  he 
merited  before  death."  (August.  Op.  Tom.  V.  p.  576,  A.)  ^^ 
Again,  sahh  St.  Augustin,  "  Those  things  which  the  Church 
celebrates  in  her  commemoration  of  the  dead,  are  not  opposed 
to  the  apostle's  declaration,  where  he  saith,  '  We  must  all  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may 
receive  according  to  the  works  done  in  the  body,  whether  it 
be  good  or  evil,'  because  every  one  prepares  for  himself  this 
privilege,  while  he  lives  in  the  body,  that  such  services  may 
profit  him.  For  they  do  not  profit  all;  and  wherefore  do  they 
not,  unless  it  be  on  account  of  the  difference  of  life  which 
each  has  led  in  the  body?  When  therefore  sacrifices,  either 
of  the  altar,  or  of  certain  alms-deeds,  are  offered  for  all  who 
have  died  after  baptism,  these  may  be  considered  a  returning 


332  augustin's  doubts 

of  thanks  for  the  very  good ;  for  those  who  were  not  very 
wicked,  they  are  propitiations ;  and  for  those  who  were  very 
wicked,  although  they  cannot  help  the  dead,  they  may  afford 
some  comfort  to  the  living.  And  to  those  who  are  benefited 
by  them,  the  profit  is  either  that  they  may  have  a  full  remis- 
sion, or  that  their  damnation  may  be  rendered  more  tolerable." 
(lb.  Tom.  VI.  p.  95,  6.) 

Now,  in  these  passages  we  have  Augiistin  plainly  opposing 
the  doctrine  by  which  the  Church  of  Rome  imagines  that  she 
can  free  the  soul  from  purgatory ;  for  he  expressly  says  that 
no  merits  can  he  obtained  for  the  deceased  soyl,  hut  those  of 
his  own  life  while  on  earth  ;  whereas  the  entire  operation  of 
the  Roman  system  consists  in  granting  to  the  departed  soul 
the  swperfuous  merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints,  so  as  to  form 
an  offset  or  satisfaction  in  the  way  of  payment,  for  the 
suffering  due  to  his  transgressions.  Here  again,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  protect  Augustin  from  the  charge  of  heresy,  according 
to  the  modern  doctrine  of  that  Church,  which  yet  would 
persuade  us  that  she  follows  his  authority. 

Again,  this  eminent  father,  and  favourite  witness  of  the 
Roman  Church,  declares  that  "  AVhatever  soul  shall  depart 
from  the  body,  at  whatever  age,  without  the  grace  and  the 
sacrament  of  the  Redeemer,  will  be  forthwith  in  punishment; 
and  in  the  final  judgment  will  receive  the  body  again  for 
eternal  punishment.  But  if,  after  the  human  generation 
which  it  has  received  from  Adam,  it  is  regenerated  in  Christ, 
and  helongs  to  his  society,  it  icill  enjoy  rest  after  the  death 
of  the  hody,  and  will  receive  the  hody  again  for  glory. 
These  doctrines  concerning  the  soul,"  adds  Augustin,  "  I  hold 
most  firmly."  (Tom.  II.  p.  445,  13.)  And  well  might  he 
hold  them  firmly,  brethren,  because  they  are  the  doctrines  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  of  all  the  fathers ;  while  the  other  notions, 
respecting  a  purgatorial  fire,  were  but  the  unsettled  conjectures 
of  a  few. 


CONCERNING    PURGATORY.  33^ 

Once  more,  let  us  hear  the  same  distinguished  father  ex- 
pressing his  idea  upon  the  doctrine  of  a  purgatorial  fire,  and 
we  shall  see  the  contrast  between  the  firm  articles  of  his  faith, 
and  the  doubtful  conjectures  of  opinion. 

"  After  the  death  of  this  body,  truly,"  saith  he,  (De  Civit. 
Dei,  Lib.  21,  Cap.  26,  p.  1456,)  "until  the  final  day  of 
damnation  and  reward,  after  the  resurrection,  since  the  souls 
of  the  departed  are  said  to  suffer  this  sort  of  fire  in  that 
interval  of  time,  which  those  do  not  feel  who  have  not  built 
the  wood  and  hay  and  stubble  of  earthly  works  and  affections 
(upon  the  true  foundation)  in  this  life ;  but  which  others  feel 
who  have  carried  with  them  this  kind  of  building,  whether 
this  suffering  is  to  be  endured  there  only,  or  both  here  and 
there,  or  whether  here,  that  it  be  not  there,  our  worldly, 
although  venial  sins,  find  a  burning  fire  of  transitory  tribula- 
tion, all  this  I  do  not  censure,  because,  perhaps^  it  is  true." 
Mark  this  language,  brethren,  I  beseech  you,  "  the  souls  of 
the  departed,"  saith  Augustin,  "  are  said  to  suffer  this  sort  of 
fire,"  and  "  1  do  not  censure,"  continues  he,  "  because  per- 
haps  it  is  true."  See  how  strongly  he  speaks  of  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine,  which  he  declares  that  he  holds  most  firmly^ 
and  then  listen  to  him  on  the  purgatorial  notion,  which  he 
says  he  does  not  censure,  because  perhaps  it  is  triie^  and 
tell  me,  brethren,  whether  any  thing  can  more  plainly  show 
the  commencement  of  this  corruption,  the  perfect  mistake  of 
those  who  fancy  it  to  have  been  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive 
creed,  and  the  awful  responsibility  which  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  incurred,  by  presuming  to  pronounce  a  curse  on  those 
who  refuse  to  believe  it. 

From  the  testimony  of  Augustin  I  proceed  to  that  of  pope 
Leo  the  great,  A.  D.  452,  which  is  of  itself  decisive  upon 
the  question. 

"The  manifold  mercy  of  God,"  saith  this  distinguished  pon- 
tiff;  "  has  so  provided  for  human  frailty,  that  not  only  by  the 


334  LEO    THE    GREAT. 

grace  of  baptism,  but  also  by  the  medicine  of  penitence,  the  hope 
of  eternal  life  may  be  restored. — But  the  guards  of  the  divine 
goodness  are  so  ordered,  that  the  indulgence  of  God  cannot 
be  obtained  unless  through  the  supplications  of  his  priesthood. 
For  the  mediator  between  God  and  man,  Christ  Jesus,  gave 
this  power  to  the  rulers  of  the  Church,  that  to  those  who  con- 
fessed their  sins,  the  act  of  penitence  should  be  given,  and 
that  being  purged  by  salutary  satisfaction,  they  should  be 
admitted  through  the  door  of  reconciliation  to  the  communion 
of  the  sacraments." — "  But  if,"  continues  Leo,  "there  be  any 
of  those,  for  whom  we  supplicate  the  Lord,  who  is  prevented 
by  some  obstacle,  and  falls  away  from  the  grace  of  this  present 
indulgence,  and  before  he  can  reach  the  constituted  remedies, 
closes  his  temporal  life  according  to  the  law  of  mortality,  that 
which  he  has  not  received  in  the  body,  he  cannot  receive 
when  he  has  put  off  the  body.  Nor  is  it  necessary  for  us 
to  discuss  the  merits  or  the  actions  of  such  as  depart  in  this 
manner,  since  the  Lord  our  God,  whose  judgments  are  incom- 
prehensible, ivill  reserve  to  his  own  justice  that  which  his 
priests  have  not  fuJJilledy  Now  ?iere,  brethren,  Leo  ex- 
pressly declares,  that  the  departed  soul  cannot  receive  after 
death  the  benefit  w-hich  the  use  of  the  appointed  remedies 
before  death  w^ould  have  obtained  for  him.  Yet  he  declares, 
and  most  truly,  that  the  justice  of  God  ^vill  supply  the  lack 
of  the  priesthood,  and  therefore  such  a  soul  would  be  precisely 
in  the  condition  to  which  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Church  applies  her  purgatory,  out  of  which  purgatory  he  could 
at  once  be  taken  by  a  plenary  indulgence.  But  Leo,  the  pope 
or  bishop  of  Rome  in  A.  D.  452,  says  not  one  word  about 
either  purgatory  or  indulgences  for  the  departed  soul ;  thus 
again  proving,  most  clearly,  that  in  his  time,  no  such  doctrines 
were  fastened  upon  the  Church,  although  some  floating  ideas 
had  been  put  forth  by  a  ^q\w  individuals,  which  long  afterwards 
were  strained  into  an  appearance  of  authority. 


GREGORY  AND  THE  BENEDICTINES.         335 

To  this  pope,  I  will  add  the  testimony  of  another,  namely, 
Gregory  the  great,  in  order  to  show  the  state  of  the  pur- 
gatorial theory  from  A.  D.  452  to  A.  D.  590.  Describing 
the  place  of  departed  spirits,  (Tom.  I.  397.  E.)  he  saith, 
"  When  we  say  that  the  souls  of  the  just  descend  to  the  lower 
regions,  or  hell,  we  do  not  mean  that  they  are  detained  in  a 
place  of  punishment.  But  we  believe  that  hell  consists  of 
two  parts,  the  upper  or  superior,  and  the  lower  or  inferior, 
and  that  the  just  enjoy  their  rest  in  the  superior  part,  while 
the  wicked  are  tormented  in  the  inferior  or  lower  portion. 
And  thus  we  understand  the  Psalmist,  where,  by  reason  of  the 
preventing  grace  of  God,  he  saith  :  '  Thou  hast  delivered  my 
soul  from  the  lowest  hell.'  Here  we  have  a  clear  and  con- 
sistent statement  of  this  point,  agreeing,  in  the  main,  with 
the  older  fathers. 

I  shall  close  these  extracts  from  the  fathers,  brethren,  by 
the  candid  though  reluctant  confession  of  the  Benedictine  edi- 
tors of  the  works  of  Ambrose,  (Tom.  I.  385)  in  these  words : 
"If  it  is  not  surprising  that  Ambrose  should  have  written  as 
he  has  done  about  the  state  of  departed  souls,  it  seems  to  be 
almost  incredible  how  uncertain  and  various  the  holy  fathers 
have  been  upon  the  same  question,  from  the  very  times  of  the 
apostles  to  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  II.  and  the  Council  of 
Florence,  that  is,  the  period  of  almost  fourteen  hundred  years. 
For  not  only  does  one  father  differ  from  another,  as  in  ques- 
tions not  yet  defined  by  the  Church  was  hkely  to  happen,  but 
they  are  not  even  found  to  be  consistent  with  themselves." 
Observe  this  acknowledgment,  brethren,  and  see  how  it  agrees 
with  the  marvellous  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  all 
her  traditions  are  apostolical,  and  that  her  creed  has  been  the 
same  from  the  beginning,  that  it  is  at  this  day. 

But  it  is  hio-h  lime  that  we  turn  from  these  most  uncandid 
pretensions,  to  the  real  foundations  of  purgatory,  which  are 
neither  in  the  Scriptures  nor  in  the  fathers,  but  in  the  super- 


336  bellarmine's  account 

stitious  visions  of  the  dark  ages,  cultivated  diligently  by  the 
priesthood,  so  as  to  enlarge  and  fortify  their  power  over  the 
fears  and  terrors  of  mankind.  And  here  I  shall  quote  from 
the  famous  cardinal  Bellarmine  his  account  of  the  matter, 
which  will  show  you,  on  the  highest  modern  authority,  the 
evidence  as  well  as  the  position  belonging  to  the  doctrine. 
The  extract  must  be  long,  brethren,  but  you  will  find  it,  I 
doubt  not,  more  than  usually  interesting. 

"Since  many  persons,"  saith  Bellarmine,  "will  not  believe 
what  they  have  never  seen,  it  has  pleased  God  sometimes  to 
raise  his  servants  from  the  dead,  and  to  send  them  to  announce 
to  the  living  what  they  have  really  witnessed."  (Philpot's  Let- 
ters to  Butler,  p.  121,  &c.)     "A  pious  father  of  a  family  in 

Northumberland  died, but  came  to  life  again  at  the  dawn 

of  the  foUov/ing  day.  All  but  his  faithful  and  affectionate  wife 
fled  at  the  sight  of  him,  and  to  her  he  communicated  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  his  case,  that  he  had  indeed  been  dead, 
but  was  permitted  to  live  again  upon  earth,  though  by  no 
means  in  the  same  manner  as  before.  In  short,  he  sold  all 
his  property,  divided  the  produce  equally  between  his  wife,  his 
children,  and  the  poor,  and  then  retired  to  the  monastery  at 
Melrose.  He  there  lived  in  such  a  state  of  unexampled  morti- 
fication, as  made  it  quite  evident,  even  if  he  had  not  said  a  word 
upon  the  subject,  that  he  had  seen  things — which  no  one  else 
had  been  permitted  to  behold.  He  explained  it  all,  however, 
in  the  following  manner: — One,  said  he,  whose  aspect  was  as 
of  light,  and  his  garment  glistening,  conducted  me  to  a  valley 
of  great  depth  and  width,  but  of  immeasurable  length;  one 
side  of  which  was  dreadful  beyond  expression  for  its  burning 
heat,  and  the  other  as  horrible  for  its  no  less  intolerable  cold. 
Both  were  filled  with  the  souls  of  men,  which  seemed  to  be 
tost,  as  by  the  fury  of  a  tempest,  from  one  side  to  the  other; 
for  being  quite  unable  to  endure  the  heat  on  the  right  hand, 
the  miserable  wretches  kept  throwing  themselves  to  the  oppo- 


OF    PURGATORY.  337 

site  side  into  the  equal  torment  of  cold,  and  thence  back  again 
into  the  raging  flames.  This,  thought  I,  must  be  hell ;  but 
my  guide  answered  to  my  thought  that  it  was  not  so.  This 
valley,  saith  he,  is  the  place  of  torment  for  the  souls  of  those, 
who,  after  delaying  to  confess  and  expiate  their  sins,  have  at 
length,  at  the  moment  of  death,  had  recourse  to  penance,  and 
so  have  departed.  These,  at  the  day  of  judgment,  will  all  be 
admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  by  reason  of  their  con- 
fession and  penance,  late  as  it  was.  But,  meanwhile,  many 
of  them  may  be  assisted  and  liberated  before  that  day,  by  the 
prayers,  alms  and  fastings  of  the  living,  particularly  by  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass." 

From  this  narrative,  in  which  cardinal  Bellarmine  states 
his  full  belief,  he  proceeds  to  another  of  a  higher  claim,  be- 
cause it  is  the  history  of  St.  Christina,  one  of  the  saints  placed 
in  the  dark  ages  upon  the  Roman  calendar,  where  she  is  called 
a  virgin  and  a  martyr,  and  has  a  festival  appointed  in  her 
honour  on  the  24th  of  July.  The  learned  cardinal  gives  the 
relation  in  the  words  of  St.  Christina  herself,  (Philpot's  Let- 
ters to  Butler,  p.  125)  as  follows: — 

"Immediately  upon  my  departure  from  the  body,"  saith  she, 
"my  soul  was  received  by  ministers  of  light  and  angels  of 
God,  and  conducted  to  a  dark  and  horrid  place  filled  with  the 
souls  of  men.  The  torments  which  I  there  witnessed  are  so 
dreadful,  that  to  attempt  to  describe  them  would  be  utterly  in 
vain;  and  there  I  beheld  not  a  few  who  had  been  known  to 
me  when  they  were  alive.  Greatly  concerned  for  their  hap- 
less state,  I  asked  what  place  it  was,  thinking  it  was  hell ;  but 
I  was  told  that  it  was  purgatory,  where  are  kept  those  who  in 
their  life-time  had  repented  indeed  of  their  sins,  but  had  not 
paid  the  punishment  due  for  them.  I  was  next  taken  to  see 
the  torments  of  hell,  where  also  I  recognized  some  of  my 
former  acquaintances  upon  earth.  Afterwards  I  was  trans- 
lated to  paradise,  even  to  the  throne  of  the  divine  Majesty ; 

2g 


338  STORY    OF    ST.    CHRISTINA. 

and  when  I  saw  the  Lord  congratulating  me,  I  was  beyond 
measure  rejoiced,  concluding,  of  course,  that  I  should  hence- 
forward dwell  with  him  for  evermore.  But  he  presently  said 
to  me,  '  In  very  deed,  my  sweetest  daughter,  here  you  shall  be 
with  me ;  but  for  the  present  I  offer  you  your  choice.  Will 
you  stay  for  ever  with  me  now?  or  will  you  return  to  the 
earth,  and  there,  in  your  mortal  body,  but  without  any  detri- 
ment to  it,  endure  punishments,  by  which  you  may  deliver  out 
of  purgatory  all  those  souls  whom  you  so  much  pitied,  and 
may  also,  by  the  sight  of  your  penance,  and  the  example  of 
your  life,  be  a  means  of  converting  to  me  some  who  are  yet 
alive  in  the  body,  and  so  come  to  me  at  last  with  a  great  in- 
crease of  your  merits?'  I  accepted,  without  hesitation,  the  re- 
turn to  life  on  the  condition  proposed ;  and  the  Lord,  congratu- 
lating me  on  the  promptitude  of  my  obedience,  ordered  that 
my  body  should  be  restored  to  me.  This  is  an  account  of  my 
death  and  my  return  to  life.  I  am  recalled  to  life  for  the  cor- 
rection and  improvement  of  men ;  I  entreat  you,  therefore,  not 
to  be  disturbed  at  what  shall  happen  to  me.  I  say  this,  be- 
cause the  things  which  you  shall  see  wrought  in  me  by  the 
will  of  God,  will  far  exceed  human  comprehension." 

These  were  her  own  words.  The  author  of  her  biography 
adds  his  account  of  the  manner  in  which  her  enterprise  was 
conducted.  She  walked  into  burning  ovens,  and  though  she 
was  so  tortured  by  the  flames  that  her  anguish  extorted  from 
her  the  most  horrible  cries,  yet  when  she  came  out,  there  was 
not  a  trace  of  any  burning  to  be  found  upon  her  body.  Again, 
during  a  hard  frost,  she  would  go  and  place  herself  under  the 
frozen  surface  of  a  river,  for  six  days  and  more,  at  a  time. 
Sometimes  she  would  be  carried  round  by  the  wheel  of  a 
water-mill,  with  the  water  of  the  river,  and  after  having  been 
whirled  round  in  a  horrible  manner,  she  was  as  whole  in  body 
as  if  nothing  had  happened  to  her — not  a  limb  was  hurt.  At 
other  times  she  would  make  all  the  dogs  in  the  town  fall  upon 


STORY    OF    ST.    LUDGARDIS.  339 

her,  and  would  rim  before  ihem  like  a  hunted  beast ;  and  yet, 
in  spite  of  being  torn  by  thorns  and  brambles,  and  worried 
and  lacerated  by  the  dogs  to  such  a  degree  that  no  part  of  her 
body  escaped  without  wounds,  there  was  not  a  weal  nor  a 
scar  to  be  seen.  And  this  mode  of  life  she  endured  for  forty- 
two  years,  "  during  which  time,"  saith  the  historian,  "  she 
brought  many  sinners  to  repentance,  and  wroug4it  many 
miracles  after  her  death." 

There  is  yet  a  third  example  related  by  this  celebrated 
Roman  Catholic  author,  which  he  quotes  from  the  Life  of  St. 
Ludgardis,  written  at  the  same  period  and  by  the  same  illus- 
trious person  who  wrote  the  other.  "  About  this  time,"  saith 
he,  "  Innocent  III.  after  having  held  the  Lateran  Council, 
departed  this  life,  and  shortly  afterwards  appeared  to  St.  Lud- 
gardis. She,  as  soon  as  she  beheld  him  encircled  with  a  vast 
flame,  demanded  who  he  was,  and  on  his  answering  that  he 
was  pope  Innocent,  she  exclaimed  with  a  groan,  'What  can 
this  be  ?  How  is  it  that  the  common  father  of  us  all  is  thus 
tormented?'  'The  reasons  of  my  suffering  thus,'  he  an- 
swered, '  are  three  in  number,  and  they  would  have  consigned 
me  to  eternal  punishments,  had  I  not,  through  the  intercession 
of  the  most  pious  mother  of  God,  to  whom  I  founded  a  monas- 
tery, repented  in  my  last  hour.  As  it  is,  though  I  am  spared 
from  eternal  suffering,  yet  I  shall  be  tortured  in  the  most 
horrible  manner  to  the  day  of  judgment ;  and  that  I  am  now 
permitted  to  come  and  pray  for  your  suffrages,  is  a  favour 
which  the  mother  of  mercy  has  obtained  for  me  from  her 
Son.'  With  these  words  he  disappeared.  Ludgardis  not  only 
communicated  to  her  holy  sisters  the  sad  necessity  to  which 
the  pope  was  reduced  in  order  to  obtain  their  succour,  but  she 
also  submitted  to  astonishing  torments  on  his  account." 

Here  then,  brethren,  we  have  the  real  mode  of  sustaining  the 
Roman  doctrine  of  purgatory,  not  by  Scripture,  nor  yet  by  the 
records  of  the  primitive  Church,  which  are  speciously,  indeed, 


340  INDULGENCES. 

but  most  unwarrantably  appealed  to  for  the  purpose,  but  by 
the  influence  of  marvellous,  horrible  and  absurd  stories,  gotten 
up  in  the  dark  ages,  and  greedily  swallowed  by  the  people,  at  a 
period  when  the  popular  credulity  was  sufficient  for  any  thing. 
For  these  were  the  ages  of  the  wildest  romance,  when  all 
imaginable  and  monstrous  tales  of  enchanters,  giants,  wizards, 
genii,  arfd  fairies,  together  with  the  daring  extravagances  of 
knight-errantry,  were  in  full  vogue ;  when  the  middling  and 
lower  classes  of  society  were  slaves  to  their  lords,  and  when 
the  higher  orders  divided  their  lives  between  war,  love,  and 
superstition. 

The  doctrine  of  indulcrences  took  its  remilar  form  at  the 
same  time,  and  was  an  important  part  of  the  system,  which  ex- 
tended the  power  of  the  priesthood  over  the  unseen  world,  and 
promised  its  most  certain  and  wonderful  effects  in  that  spiritual 
state  from  whence  no  counter-evidence  could  be  brought  to  con- 
tradict them.  Their  first  appearance  in  history  was  on  the 
occasion  of  the  crusades  in  the  eleventh  century;  when  the 
popes,  for  the  encouragement  of  warriors  to  undertake  the 
recovery  of  the  holy  land,  proclaimed  remission  of  all  their 
sins  to  the  soldiers  of  the  cross.  The  great  Council  of 
Lateran,  in  the  13th  century,  applied  them  to  the  warriors 
who  engaged  to  extirpate  heresy  by  tire  and  sword;  and  after 
some  time  they  became  so  extended,  that  very  trifling  sums  of 
money,  or  personal  services,  were  sufficient  to  obtain  them. 
It  was  this  which,  under  God,  led  to  the  Reformation.  For 
Leo  X.  being  desirous  of  raising  a  large  sum  of  money  in  or- 
der to  complete  the  magnificent  Church  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome, 
followed  the  advice  of  one  of  his  cardinals;  and,  as  a  Roman 
Catholic  historian  expresses  it,  "  spread  throughout  the  world 
the  amplest  indulgences,  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  living, 
but  also  with  power  to  loose  the  souls  of  the  dead  from  purga- 
tory;  which  things,  having  in  themselves  neither  probability  nor 
authority,  it  being  notorious  that  they  were  granted  solely  to 


MODERN  STATE  OF  THE  DOCTRINE.  341 

extort  money  from  those  who  had  more  simplicity  than  pru- 
dence, and  being  besides,  exercised  most  imprudently  by  the 
commissioners,  the  greatest  part  of  whom  purchased  from  the 
court  the  power  of  exercising  them,  had  excited  in  many 
places  great  indignation  and  scandal,  especially  in  Germany, 
where  faculties  for  liberating  the  souls  of  the  dead  from  purga- 
tory were  sold  at  a  trifling  price,  or  made  the  stakes  of  gam- 
bling in  taverns."  (Philpol's  Letters  to  Butler,  182  to  185.) 
This  extract,  brethren,  which  is  in  the  words  of  their  own 
writer,  fully  justifies  the  indignant  zeal  of  Luther,  when  he  pub- 
licly attacked  these  indulgences  at  Wittemberg :  and  thus  was 
the  excess  of  this  modern  corruption  made  the  instrument  of 
restoring  the  true  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  bringing  back  the 
long  neglected  system  of  the  Word  of  God. 

Since  the  Reformation,  an  immense  reduction  has  certainly 
been  practically  and  theoretically  effected  in  this  matter.  The 
assumed  infallibility  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  however,  pre- 
vents an  open  avowal  of  the  improvement;  and  indeed  the  sub- 
stantial errors  of  these  three  connected  corruptions,  satisfac- 
tion, purgatory  and  indulgences,  are  still  maintained,  although 
to  a  very  different  degree  of  extravagance,  both  in  the  papal 
dominions,  and  in  countries  where  the  Reformation  has  been 
successful.  To  show  the  existing  state  of  the  matter  in  our 
own  day,  the  best  evidence  I  can  set  before  you  is  the  bull  of 
the  pope,  published  in  A.  D.  1825,  for  the  last  jubilee. 

"During  this  year,"  saith  the  pope,  "which  we  truly  call 
the  acceptable  time  and  the  time  of  salvation,  &c.,  we  have 
resolved,  in  virtue  of  the  authority  given  to  us  by  heaven,  fully 
to  unlock  that  sacred  treasure,  composed  of  the  merits,  suffer- 
ings and  virtues  of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  his  virgin  mother, 
and  of  all  the  saints,  which  the  Author  of  human  salvation  has 
entrusted  to  our  dispensation.  We  proclaim  that  the  year  of 
atonement  and  pardon,  of  redemption  and  grace,  of  remission 
and  indulgence,  is  arrived :  in  which  we  know  that  those  bene- 
2  G  2 


342  THE    PAPAL    BULL. 

fits  which  the  old  law,  the  messenger  of  things  to  come, 
brought  every  fiftieth  year  to  the  Jewish  people,  are  renewed 
in  a  much  more  sacred  manner  by  the  accumulation  of  spirit- 
ual blessings,  through  Him,  by  whom  came  peace  and  truth. 
■During  which  year  of  the  Jubilee,  we  mercifully  give  and 
grant  in  the  Lord,  a  plenary  indulgence,  remission  and  pardon 
of  all  their  sins,  to  all  the  faithful  of  Christ,  truly  penitent  and 
confessing  their  sins  and  receiving  the  holy  communion^  who 
shall  visit  the  Churches  of  blessed  Peter  and  Paul,  &c.,  and 
shall  pour  forth  their  pious  prayers  to  God  for  the  exaltation  of 
the  Church,  the  extirpation  of  heresies,  the  concord  of  Catholic 
princes,  and  the  safety  and  tranquillity  of  Christian  people." 

"  But  you,  venerable  brethren,"  continues  the  pope,  in  ano- 
ther part  of  the  same  instrument,  "patriarchs,  primates,  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  co-operate  with  these  our  cares  and  desires. 
To  you  it  belongs  to  explain  with  perspicuity  the  power  of  in- 
dulgences ;  what  is  their  efficacy,  not  only  in  the  remission  of 
canonical  penance,  but  also  of  the  temporal  punishment  due  to 
divine  justice  for  sin ;  and  what  succour  is  afforded  out  of  this 
heavenly  treasure,  from  the  merits  of  Christ  and  his  saints,  to 
such  as  have  departed  real  penitents  in  God's  love,  yet  before 
they  had  duly  satisfied,  by  fruits  worthy  of  penance,  for  sins  of 
commission  and  omission,  and  are  now  purifying  in  the  fire  of 
purgatory,  that  an  entrance  may  be  opened  for  them  into  their 
eternal  country,  where  nothing  defiled  is  admitted.  Courage 
and  attention,  venerable  brethren,  for  some  there  are,  follow- 
ing that  wisdom  which  is  not  from  God,  and  covering  them- 
selves under  sheep's  clothing — who,  under  the  usual  pretence 
of  a  more  refined  piety,  are  now  sowing  amongst  the  people 
erroneous  comments  on  this  subject."  (Philpot's  Let.  to  But. 
Sup.  p.  428.) 

We  see  here,  brethren,  that  the  theory  of  this  matter  is 
stated  in  strong  and  plain  terms  under  the  very  authority  of 
the  pope  himself,  while,  with  regard  to  the  practice,  the  book 


CONCLUSION.  343 

called  True  Piety,  prepared  expressly  for  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  this  country,  informs  us,  that  a  plenary  indulgence  may  be 
obtained  in  the  United  States  on  the  following  days:  "1.  From 
Christmas  Eve  to  Epiphany.  2.  From  the  first  Sunday  in 
Lent  to  the  second  inclusive.  3.  From  Palm  Sunday  to  Low 
Sunday  inclusively,  except  Good  Friday  and  Holy  Saturday. 
4.  From  Whitsunday  to  the  end  of  the  Octave  of  Corpus 
Christi.  5.  On  the  five  great  festivals  of  the  blessed  virgin 
Mary,  with  their  Octaves.  6.  On  the  festivals  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul,  of  St.  Michael  the  archangel,  and  within  their 
Octaves."  (True  Piety,  New  York  ed.  of  1826,  p.  226.)  From 
which  it  appears,  that  the  American  Roman  Catholic  can  have 
a  plenary  indulgence,  either  for  himself  or  for  the  souls  in  pur- 
gatory, on  nearly  half  the  days  in  the  year.  The  fee  paid  for 
them  I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining,  but  I  am  well  assured 
that  they  cannot  be  had  without  money  and  without  price, 
however  poor  the  man,  and  however  pressing  the  supposed 
necessity. 

And  now,  brethren,  aUhough  I  have  wearied  myself  and 
you  with  this  long  discussion,  I  feel  that  it  would  be  due  to  the 
occasion  to  speak  of  the  result  of  these  perversions,  if  a  better 
opportunity  were  not  at  hand  on  the  closing  of  the  series.  I 
shall  only  therefore,  add,  that  our  next  and  last  subject  will  be 
the  doctrine  of  the  eucharistic  sacrament,  including  transub- 
stantiation  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  The  labour  neces- 
sary in  the  preparation  of  these  discourses,  on  my  part,  and 
the  close  attention  demanded  on  yours,  will  not  be  without 
fruit,  if  they  aid  in  strengthening  our  gratitude  to  God  for  the 
light  of  that  Reformation,  which  has  freed  us  from  the  yoke  of 
this  spiritual  bondage.  O !  that  the  millions  of  our  fellow 
Christians,  who  are  still  lying  under  it,  might  learn  to  know 
their  error,  and  return  to  the  Scriptural  truth  of  that  Gospel 
which  alone  can  make  them  free.  The  Church  of  Rome  was 
once  the  first  amoncr  the  Churches.     St.  Paul  himself  bore 


344  CONCLUSION. 

testimony,  that  their  faith  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole 
world.  God  grant  that  it  may  yet  be  brought  back  to  the 
same  pure  and  apostolic  standard,  when  every  invention  of 
men,  every  trace  of  superstition,  every  relic  of  a  dark  and  bar- 
barous age,  every  perilous  dependence  upon  the  exercise  of 
priestly  power  in  the  unseen  world,  which  God  has  made  sub- 
ject neither  to  our  observation  nor  to  our  control, — when  all, 
in  a  word,  which  has  defiled  and  deformed  the  religion  of  the 
glorious  Redeemer,  shall  be  swept  away  from  the  Universal 
Church;  when  the  faith  that  was  once  Catholic  shall  be 
Catholic  again,  and  the  blessed  Word  of  God  shall  go  forth  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth,  conquering  and  to  conquer. 


LECTURE   XV. 

1  Cor.  xi.  29. — For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth 
and  drinketh  judgment  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  body  of  the 
Lord. — (Doway  Version.) 

The  topic  on  which  we  are  about  to  enter,  my  brethren, 
is  one  of  the  most  important  points  in  our  controversy  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  has  given  rise  to  more  subtle  dis- 
putation than  almost  any  other,  amongst  Protestants  them- 
selves. It»is  the  question  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
administration  of  the  holy  Eucharist,  commonly  called  the 
Lord's  Supper.  There  are  four  or  five  varieties  of  opinion 
upon  this  subject,  amongst  orthodox  Christians,  of  which, 
however,  it  does  not  fall  within  our  proposed  range  to  treat 
particularly;  our  design  being  chiefly  to  set  forth  the  error 
which  our  own  branch  of  the  Reformation  has  condemned 
in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  under  the  well-known  name  of 
Transubstantiation. 

This  doctrine  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows:  The 
Church  of  Rome  holds,  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Table,  or  of  the  Altar,  there  is  a  true,  proper,  and  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  of  the  actual  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  under  the  appearance  of  bread  and  wine ;  and  that 
by  virtue  of  the  priestly  prayer  of  consecration,  the  elements 
are  so  changed,  that  nothing  remains  of  their  former  sub- 
stance but  only  the  outward  appearance,  which  they  call 
the  species ;  the  whole  of  the  bread  being  transmuted  into 
the  actual  flesh,  and  the  whole  of  the  wine  into  the  actual 


346  ROMAN    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    EUCHARIST. 

blood  of  Christ,  and  each  believer  receiving,  from  the  hand 
of  the  priest,  the  entire  body,  blood,  soul,  and  divinity  of 
the  Saviour.  They  further  contend,  that  the  whole  of  Christ 
is  contained  in  either  form,  so  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  par- 
take of  both  the  bread  and  the  wine  as  Christ  himself  ap- 
pointed. And  hence,  for  many  centuries,  they  allow  the 
laity  only  to  receive  the  bread  or  wafer,  and  confine  the 
use  of  the  wine  to  the  priests  alone.  This  latter  change  in 
the  administration  of  the  sacrament  they  call  a  matter  of 
discipline,  and  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  authority  for  it 
in  Scripture  or  the  fathers,  but  justify  it,  as  they  suppose, 
by  the  argument,  that  as  there  can  be  no  human  body  with- 
out blood,  therefore,  in  receiving  the  body  of  Christ,  they 
necessarily  receive  the  blood  also.  The  main  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation  they  defend  from  the  positive  words  of 
our  Lord,  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  which  is  given  for 
you.^^ — "  Drink  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the 
New  Testament  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission 
of  sins,''"'  (Matt.  xxvi.  26,)  as  also  from  the  declaration  of  the 
Redeemer  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  "  Unless 
you  eat  of  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood, 
you  shall  not  have  life  in  you.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  everlasting  life,  and  I  will 
raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.'''' 

In  contradistinction  from  the  Roman  doctrine,  amongst 
others,  is  that  which  our  Church  maintains,  together  with 
the  Church  of  England,  from  which  we  derived  it.  And 
here  our  Articles  teach,  that  there  is  indeed  a  partaking  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  holy 
Eucharist,  when  received  with  a  lively  faith.  But  that  this 
presence  of  Christ  is  after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  man- 
ner, and  not  according  to  the  earthly  notion  of  a  gross  mate- 
rial substance:  that  therefore,  there  is  no  change  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine,  but  only  a  solemn  con- 
secration of  them  to  a  sacred  use,  which  does  truly  change 


ANGLICAN    DOCTRINE. 


347 


their  character  and  their  name,  but  not  their  material  nature. 
And  hence  our  Articles  condemn  the  Roman  Catholic  tenet 
of  Transubstantiation,  declaring  that  "  ^7  cannot  be  proved 
by  Holy  Writ,  but  is  repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of 
Scripture,  overthrowcth  the  nature  of  a  Sacrament,  and 
hath  given  rise  to  many  superstitions.'''' 

We  further  deny  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist there  is  a  true,  proper,  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  of 
Christ.  For  Christ  hath  once  suffered  for  sin,  saith  the 
Apostle,  and  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sin,  but 
only  a  commemoration  of  that  which  is  made  already.  The 
only  sacrifice  we  acknowledge,  therefore,  is  the  sacrifice  of 
praise,  the  offering  to  God  the  sacred  elements,  as  we  do  all 
our  other  worship,  and  the  holy,  reasonable,  and  living 
sacrifice  of  ourselves,  our  souls  and  bodies,  to  be  his  forever. 

In  examining  the  argument  belonging  to  our  subject,  we 
have  to  inquire,  1st,  What  say  the  Scriptures?  2dly,  What 
say  the  fathers'?  and  3dly,  What  is  the  history  and  present 
state  of  the  Roman  doctrine. 

First  then,  the  Church  of  Rome  insists  that  Scripture,  in 
its  literal  sense,  is  decisive  in  her  favour.  This  is  my  body, 
saith  Christ :  This  is  my  blood.  But  to  this  we  reply,  that 
the  literal  meaning  of  Scripture  is  not  always  the  true  one. 
It  is,  indeed,  the  sound  and  acknowledged  rule  of  interpre- 
tation, that  the  literal  sense  is  to  be  received,  unless  it  in- 
volves an  absurdity  or  a  contradiction.  And  we  allege  that 
the  language  of  our  Lord  must  be  understood  figuratively, 
and  not  literally,  by  virtue  of  this  very  rule;  since  it  is  one 
of  the  instances  to  which  the  saying  of  the  Apostle  applies  : 
The  letter  killeth,  it  is  the  Spirit  that  giveth  life. 

I  shall  endeavour  to  justify  this  allegation,  by  referring 
to  those  texts  of  Scripture,  in  which  a  similar  use  of  meta- 
phorical or  figurative  terms  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands; 
and  shall  then  prove,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  essential 


348  TEANSUBSTANTIATION 

principles  of  all  religious  evidence  oblige  us  to  construe  the 
words  relied  on  in  the  same  manner. 

Our  blessed  Lord  saith,  for  instance,  /  am  the  door, 
I  am  the  vine,  I  am  the  way.  Thus  also,  the  apostle  saith, 
The  rock  was  Christ:  all  of  which,  with  a  multitude  of  others, 
are  admitted  to  be  figurative  expressions,  although  full  of 
truth  and  meaning.  But  we  cannot  prove  them  to  be  figura- 
tive by  any  other  mode,  than  by  showing  the  incongruity  or 
absurdity  of  their  literal  signification.  And  this  cannot  be 
shown  by  doubting,  whether  the  omnipotence  of  Christ  could 
assume  the  appearance  of  these  various  forms;  for  how 
can  we  place  limits  to  the  Almighty?  It  does  not  become  us 
to  define  what  shall  be  impossible  with  God.  For  aught 
we  know,  Christ  could  have  taken  the  aspect  of  a  vine, 
or  a  way,  or  a  rock,  if  it  had  pleased  him.  But  such  a 
transformation  could  have  answered  no  purpose  that  we  can 
conceive;  neither  is  it  mentioned  in  the  sacred  history  as 
having  been  either  intended,  or  as  having  taken  place;  and 
hence  it  is  agreed,  with  perfect  unanimity,  that  these  expres- 
sions were  figurative,  designed  for  a  spiritual  and  not  a  literal 
interpretation.  I  am  aware,  indeed,  that  our  Roman  brethren 
are  shocked  at  such  an  argument,  and  think  that  it  is  char- 
acterized by  gross  irreverence.  But  they  must  permit  me 
to  retort  the  charge  upon  themselves.  For  if  it  be  irreverent 
to  imagine  that  the  divine  Redeemer  should  appear  in  the 
form  of  a  vine  or  a  rock,  how  much  more  irreverent  must 
it  be  to  teach,  that  he  presents  himself  in  the  shape  of  a 
wafer? 

With  perfect  consistency,  therefore,  as  we  maintain,  we 
apply  the  same  reasoning  to  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist. 
Our  Lord  had  previously  declared  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St. 
John's  Gospel,  /  am  the  living  bread  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever, 
And  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give 
for  the  life  of  the  world.     He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and 


DISPROVED.  349 

drinheih  my  blood,  hath  eterjial  life;  and  I  ivill  raise  him 
up  at  the  last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my 
blood  is  drink  indeed.  Now  in  these  expressions,  the  literal 
sense  was  totally  repugnant,  because  it  would  contemplate 
the  most  revolting  act  of  cannibalism,  in  the  very  face  of  the 
Mosaic  law.  And  therefore,  as  it  is  manifest  that  our  Lord 
could  not  have  designed  the  literal  eatinoj  and  drinking  of  his 
flesh  and  blood,  the  flgurative  and  spiritual  sense  was  neces- 
sarily the  only  one  to  be  adopted.  His  whole  meaning 
indeed  was  not  yet  clear,  even  to  his  apostles.  The  careless 
and  unbelieving  crowd  turned  away  at  what  they  called  a 
hard  saying.  It  was  their  duty  to  have  waited  in  humility, 
and  asked  for  an  explanation.  Instead  of  which,  they 
condemned  him  at  once;  and  probably  concluding  that  there 
was  some  ground  for  the  slander  of  his  enemies,  that  he  had 
a  devil  and  luas  mad,  walked  no  more  with  him.  The 
apostles  had  faith  enough,  however,  to  know,  that  all  their 
divine  Master's  words  must  be  susceptible  of  a  wise  and 
consistent  meaning,  and  therefore  they  patiently  received  his 
declaration,  and  waited  until  they  should  have  it  fully 
explained.  Accordingly,  in  the  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed,  he  tells  them  the  mystery  of  his  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  the  world ;  he  shows  them  that  union  with  him  was 
the  appointed  way  of  salvation ;  that  as  the  common  bread  of 
life  nourished  the  body  by  becoming  incorporated  with  it, 
so  he  would  be  the  bread  of  life  both  to  the  body  and  the 
soul.  And  then  he  institutes  this  affecting  sacrament,  break- 
ing  the  bread,  and  saying.  Take,  eat:  this  is  my  body  ivhich 
is  given  for  you;  and  delivering  to  them  the  cup,  saying, 
Drink  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  is  shed  for  you  and  for  many,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  How  beautifully  the  mystery  of  redeeming 
love  is  here  both  figuratively  and  spiritually  set  before  them! 
that  in  the  faithful  reception  of  those  consecrated  emblems, 
Christ  would  unite  himself  with  them  so  perfectly,  that  his 
2h 


850  TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

body  should  be  accounted  one  with  their  body,  his  blood 
with  their  blood,  his  soul  with  their  soul,  that  the  atonement 
of  his  blessed  sacrifice  and  the  obedience  of  his  perfect 
righteousness  should  thus  be  secured  to  them,  and  the  power 
of  his  Divinity  should  be  pledged  on  their  behalf,  to  cleanse, 
and  sanctify,  and  make  them  more  and  more  fit  for  his  eter- 
nal society  in  heaven! 

Here  then,  the  apostles  had  the  former  mysterious  decla- 
ration explained.  The  bread  of  heaven,  which  is  spiritual, 
was  represented  by  the  bread  of  earth,  which  is  natural,  in 
order  to  show  how  the  Redeemer's  love  could  unite  the 
earthly  offspring  of  the  first  Adam,  to  that  second  Adam 
who  was  the  Lord  from  heaven.  And  although  the  sym- 
bols of  this  precious  mystery  were  fitly  appointed  to  com- 
memorate the  body  that  was  broken  and  the  blood  that  was 
shed,  because  his  obedience  unto  death  was  the  meritorious 
ground  of  our  redemption,  yet  the  blessing  promised,  and  de- 
signed to  be  bestowed,  was  the  incorporation  not  literally 
with  his  natural  but  with  his  spiritual  body,  the  Bread  from 
heaven,  in  order  that  his  elect  might  form  that  mystical 
body  which  is  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people — 
that  body  of  which  he  is  the  Head  and  the  Spouse,  the  New 
Jcrusalem-^the  Church  of  God. 

To  my  mind,  any  other  construction  than  this  would  in- 
volve us  in  the  very  absurdity,  which  the  Roman  Catholic 
expositors  acknowledge  must  be  avoided  In  the  sixth  chapter 
of  St.  John's  Gospel,  where  the  Jews  are  said  to  have  mur- 
mured, asking,  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  fesh  to  eat. 
For  they  all  connect  that  chapter  with  the  institution  of  the 
Eucharist,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  we  have  no  objection  to 
this  interpretation.  They  also  acknowledge  that  the  literal 
eating  of  our  Saviour's  body  and  blood,  according  to  the 
mistaken  notion  of  those  disciples  who  turned  back  and 
walked  no  more  with  him,  would  have  been  a  horrible  and 
atrocious  wickedness.  And  yet  they  imagine  that  the  bread 
and  the  wine  are  transubstantiated  in  the  sacrament  so  per- 


DISPROVED.  351 

fectly,  as  to  be  corporeally  and  literally^  the  very  same 
flesh  and  Mood  which  were  sacrificed  upon  the  cross^  the 
difference  being  in  the  outward  appearance  merely.  But  is 
not  this  a  manifest  trifling  with  their  own  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion? Is  it  not  rejecting  the  literal  sense  in  one  place,  while 
they  contend  for  it  in  the  other  place,  although  in  both,  our 
Lord  is  speaking  of  the  very  same  thing?  Is  it  not  further 
liable  to  the  fatal  objection,  that  the  right  and  the  wrong — 
the  propriety  or  the  abomination  of  a  literal  eating  and  drink- 
ing human  flesh  and  blood, — is  made  to  turn,  Jiot  upon  the 
siihstantial  reality^  but  on  the  mere  outward  disguise  ?  So 
that  while  they  acknowledge  it  would  be  atrocious  to  eat  our 
Lord's  flesh,  if  it  looked  like  fleshy  the  sin  becomes  piety, 
when  it  is  his  flesh  under  the  outward  appearance  of 
bread!  Surely,  however,  it  must  be  manifest,  that  the  out- 
ward appearance  cannot  change  the  quality  of  the  act, 
when  the  doer  of  the  act  professes  to  know  that  it  is  only 
an  outward  appearance  ;  and  therefore  they  are  involved  in 
the  strange  absurdity  of  asserting,  that  the  eating  and  drink- 
ing human  flesh  and  blood,  which  is  confessed  to  be  an  atro- 
cious barbarity  in  one  chapter,  becomes  an  act  of  the  highest 
religion  in  the  other. 

Out  of  this  difiiculty  I  can  see  no  way  of  escape.  For  if 
they  allege  that  our  Saviour's  body  and  blood  were  in  the 
one  case  natural,  whereas  in  the  case  of  the  Eucharist  they 
are  produced  by  miracle,  it  will  be  plain  that  it  is  no  answer, 
for  two  reasons.  First,  because  our  Saviour's  natural  body 
and  blood  were  as  perfectly  the  product  of  a  miracle  as 
his  sacramental  body  and  blood  can  be;  and  secondly,  be- 
cause it  is  their  own  doctrine  that  they  are  the  same. 
Listen  to  the  prayer  at  the  Mass,  directed  to  be  ofi^ered  by 
the  people,  when  the  Host  is  lifted  up;  that  is,  the  conse- 
crated bread  of  the  sacrament,  which  they  call  the  Host, 
from  the  Latin  word  hostia,  signifying  the  victim,  or  the 
sacrifice.     The  bell  is  rung  to  give  notice  to  the  congrega- 


352  TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

tion,  the  priest  lifts  up  the  consecrated  wafer  or  Host  on 
high,  all  the  people  fall  on  their  knees,  and  this  is  the 
prayer  addressed  to  it: 

"  Hail,  O  victim  of  salvation !  eternal  King  I  incarnate 
Word  !  sacrificed  for  me  and  all  mankind.  Hail !  precious 
body  of  the  Son  of  God.  Hail !  sacred  flesh,  torn  with  nails, 
pierced  with  a  lance,  and  bleeding  on  the  cross  for  us  poor 
sinners."  (True  Piety,  p.  61.) 

In  like  manner,  at  the  elevation  of  the  chalice  with  the 
consecrated  wine,  there  is  a  similar  address  to  it. 

"  Hail,  sacred  blood  I  flowing  from  the  wounds  of  Christ, 
and  washing  away  the  sins  of  the  world.  O  cleanse,  sanc- 
tify and  preserve  my  soul."   (lb.  62.) 

Thus,  too,  in  one  of  the  acts  directed  before  communion, 
(True  Piety,  p.  122,)  the  communicant  uses  these  words: 
"Yes,  my  dear  Saviour,  I  openly  confess,  and  am  inwardly 
convinced,  that  it  is  thou  thyself  I  am  going  to  receive  ;  thou 
who  for  my  sake  wast  born  in  a  manger;  thou  who  for  my  re- 
demption didst  die  on  a  cross,  and  who,  though  now  gloriously 
seated  on  thy  heavenly  throne,  still  continvest  on  earthy  un- 
der the  sacramental  veils,  to  feed  and  nourish  the  souls  of 
men.  Were  I  to  behold  thee  with  my  corporeal  eyes,  and 
examine  the  impressions  of  the  wounds  thou  didst  receive 
in  thy  sacred  hands  and  side,  as  St.  Thomas  did,  still  I 
could  not  say  with  more  confidence  than  I  do  now,  that  thou 
art  my  Lord  and  my  God.  Though  my  senses  may  tell 
me  it  is  nothing  but  mere  bread,  yet  submitting  them  entirely 
in  obedience  to  divine  faith,  I  answer,  it  is  thy  real  body  and 
blood,  accompanied  by  thy  sold  and  divinity.''''  Here, 
brethren,  it  is  perfectly  plain,  that  the  sacramental  body  and  ^ 
the  natural  body  are  regarded  as  precisely  identical  in  sub- 
stance and  reality ;  and  therefore  the  eating  and  drinking 
must  be  substantially  and  really  the  same  act  in  the  one 
case,  that  it  would  be  in  the  other.    Consequently  the  neces- 


DISPROVED.  353 

sity  for  abandoning  the  literal  sense,  for  the  figurative  and 
spiritual,  must  be  the  same  in  both. 

This  brings  me  to  the  second  argument,  namely,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  obliges  us  to  contradict  the 
evidence  of  the  senses,  in  a  matter  which  is  the  proper  ob- 
ject of  sense;  and  thus  to  cast  aside  the  highest  testimony 
which  God  himself  has  committed  to  his  creatures.  True, 
indeed,  they  try  to  evade  this  argument  by  telling  us,  that 
it  is  as  contrary  to  reason  that  God  should  be  Three  and 
One,  as  it  is  contrary  to  sense  that  flesh  should  exist  with 
the  appearance  of  bread,  and  blood  with  the  appearance  of 
wine.  But  this  appears  to  me  to  be  a  mere  sophism.  In 
receiving  the  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God  concerning  the 
Trinity,  we  are  not  called  upon  to  contradict  our  reason. 
The  calumny  sometimes  heard  against  the  Trinity,  that  the 
proposition  is  contradictory,  arises  from  the  ignorance  of  the 
objector.  For  we  do  not  hold  that  God  is  Three,  in  the 
same  resyect  as  he  is  One,  but  that  he  is  Three  m personality, 
and  One  in  essence  or  in  substance,  which,  however  it  may 
be  above  our  reason,  can  never  be  justly  said  to  be  contra- 
dictory to  it.  Indeed,  so  far  is  religion  from  demanding  a 
contradiction  either  to  sense  or  reason,  that  all  its  evidences 
appeal  directly  to  the  senses,  and  through  them  to  the  reason. 
When  our  Saviour  performed  his  wonderful  works,  he  ad- 
dressed himself  to  the  senses,  in  proof  of  his  doctrine.  When 
he  changed  the  water  into  wine,  how  did  his  disciples  know 
the  fact  ?  By  their  senses.  When  he  fed  the  thousands  with 
a  few  loaves  and  fishes;  when  he  walked  on  the  water; 
when  he  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead ;  when  he  healed  the 
deaf,  the  blind,  the  halt  and  the  maimed  ;  when  he  cast  out 
devils,  and  said  to  the  raging  billows,  "  Peace^  be  still ;"  how 
did  the  apostles  know  what  was  done?  By  their  senses. 
When  he  bowed  his  sacred  head  upon  the  cross,  arose  from 
the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  how  did  they  learn  these 
truths  ?  By  the  senses.  And  therefore  we  see  that  the  whole 
2h2 


354  TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

HISTORY  OF  THE  GOSPEL,  the  divinity,  the  humanity,  the 
miracles,  and  the  sacrifice  of  our  Lord,  derived  their  testi- 
mony from  sense,  and  from  sense  alone. 

Perfectly  regardless  of  all  this,  the  doctors  of  Rome  tell 
us,  when  arguing  about  their  dogma  of  transubstantiation, 
that  we  must  not  trust  our  senses  to  inform  us  whether  a 
certain  substance  is  bread  or  flesh,  and  whether  a  certain 
other  substance  is  wine  or  blood.  Christ  said  so,  they  ex- 
claim, and  therefore  it  must  be  true.  The  question,  however, 
is  not,  what  did  our  blessed  Lord  say,  but  how  are  we  to  un- 
derstand him  ?  For  his  words  admit  of  two  interpretations  ; 
one  of  which  is  consistent  with  the  senses  and  reason,  while 
the  other  grossly  contradicts  them  both.  The  Church  of 
Rome  insists  that  we  shall  take  the  contradictory  interpre- 
tation, because  it  suits  best,  as  they  think,  with  the  words 
of  the  Gospel.  But  how  do  we  know  the  words  are  in  the 
Gospel  ]  By  our  senses.  Our  eyes  testify  that  the  language 
is  recorded.  And  how  do  we  know  that  the  substance  of 
the  bread  and  of  the  wine  remain  unchanged  by  the  prayer 
of  consecration  ?  Bt/  our  senses.  The  same  eyes  that  bear 
the  one  testimony,  bear  also  the  other.  The  Church  of 
Rome,  therefore,  places  herself  in  this  dilemma,  that  the 
same  eyes  which  she  commands  us  to  believe  one  moment, 
she  requires  us  to  disbelieve  the  next.  Neither  is  this  the 
whole  extent  of  the  absurdity.  For  we  have  only  the  sense 
of  sight  to  satisfy  us  that  the  words  are  in  the  Bible,  but  we 
have  the  sight,  the  smell,  the  taste,  and  the  touch,  all  testi- 
fying that  the  bread  is  not  flesh,  and  that  the  wine  is  not 
blood.  And  yet  the  Church  of  Rome  commands  us,  under 
pain  of  damnation,  to  disbelieve  the  whole  four  senses, 
in  order  to  comply  with  her  claim  of  infallibility.  Truly, 
my  brethren,  it  is  hard  to  know  which  we  should  most  ad- 
mire in  such  a  doctrine,  the  boldness  which  demands  the 
acquiescence  of  mankind  under  the  penalty  of  a  curse,  or 


DISPROVED.  355 

the  infatuation  which  has  bowed  the  intellect  of  millions  to 
such  a  monstrous  proposition. 

Now  these  arguments  we  think  amply  sufficient  to  show, 
that  when  our  Lord  uttered  the  words :  "  This  is  my  body 
which  is  broken  for  you,  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament which  is  shed  for  you,"  he  designed  not  to  establish 
transubstantiation,  but  to  set  forth  figuratively  and  spiritually 
the  great  truth  on  which  rests  the  whole  application  of  the 
Gospel  system,  namely,  that  his  sincere  and  faithful  people 
must  be  incorporated  with  him  in  body  and  soul,  in  order 
to  their  redemption ;  and  therefore  that  in  this  blessed  sacra- 
ment he  would  give  himself  to  them,  and  unite  himself  to 
them,  mystically  and  spiritually,  though  really,  for  that  gra- 
cious and  glorious  purpose:  while,  in  the  bread  and  wine, 
appointed  as  the  outward  symbols  of  this  spiritual  mystery, 
he  designed  to  exhibit,  not  his  actual  flesh  and  blood,  but 
an  expressive ^^wre  or  emblem  of  them.     For  otherwise,  in 
adopting  the  literal  sense,  so  as  to  imagine  a  total  change  of 
the  substance  of  the  bread  into  Christ's  natural  flesh,  and  the 
substance  of  the  wine  into  his  natural  blood,  we  contradict 
the  divine  system  given  to  the  Israelites,  to  which  the  notion 
of  feeding  upon  human  flesh  and  blood  would  have  been 
utterly  abhorrent;  we  contradict  the  evidence  of  the  senses 
in  the  proportion  of  four  out  of  five;  we  contradict  the  order 
of  faith,  since  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  that  is,  by  the  sense, 
which  is  the  only  avenue  to  the  mind.     And  this  compli- 
cated contradiction  of  Scripture,  sense,  and  reason,  is  to 
serve  no  end;  because  the  incorporation  of  the  faithful  with 
Christ,  both  in  body  and  soul,  and  his  presence  in  the  sacra- 
ment for  that  purpose,  is  provided  for  as  perfectly  by  our 
doctrine  as  by  theirs,  and  in  a  manner  which  we  think 
much  more  suitable  to  the  character  of  the  Christian  system. 
For  this  view  of  the  subject  presents  a  true  analogy  with  the 
other  great  sacrament  of  Baptism.    "  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  the  Spirit,^''  saith  our  Lord,  "  he  cannot  enter 


356  THE    TRUE    DOCTRINE. 

into  the  kingdom  of  God.''^  Here  the  connecting  the  out- 
ward symbol  of  water  which  cleanses  the  body,  with  the 
inward  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  cleanses  the  soul, 
demands  no  change  in  the  natural  properties  of  the  water. 
The  minister  prays  that  God  would  sanctify  this  water  to 
the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin,  and  refers  to  the  piercing 
of  the  Saviour's  side  on  the  cross,  and  the  water  flowing 
from  it.  But  the  consecrating  of  the  portion  applied  in  the 
performance  of  this  solemn  ordinance,  involves  no  transub- 
stantiation  of  it  into  the  very  water  which  issued  from  the 
sacred  body  of  Christ,  although  the  express  command  of  our 
Redeemer  makes  the  water  indispensable  to  the  sacrament. 
So  in  the  other  case,  precisely.  The  same  blessed  Redeemer 
connects  the  outward  symbols  of  bread  and  wine  with  the 
inward  grace,  which  incorporates  him  mystically,  though 
most  truly,  with  his  faithful  people,  thus  rendering  them  one 
with  his  spiritual  body.  "  JPo?'  there  is  a  natural  bodyj" 
saith  St.  Paul,  ^' and  there  is  a  spiritual  body.  As  it  is 
icritten,  the  first  Adam  was  made  a  living  soul,  the  second 
Adam  was  made  a  quickening  Spirit^''  And  our  Lord 
himself  declared  to  the  objectors  against  his  doctrine:  "It 
IS  THE  Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profit- 
ETH  NOTHING."  But  the  transubslantiatino;  the  outward 
emblems  of  bread  and  wine  would  avail  no  more  to  our 
union  with  this  spiritual  body,  than  the  transubstantiating 
of  the  water  in  baptism  would  avail  to  our  spiritual  birth- 
right.  They  are  both  expressive  figures  or  emblems  of  the 
spiritual  benefit,  conveyed  in  the  faithful  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments. The  water  cleanses  the  body  by  washing  away 
impurity.  So  doth  the  Spirit  of  Christ  cleanse  the  soul  by 
washing  away  our  sin.  Bread  and  wine  continue  and 
support  our  bodily  life,  by  entering  into  and  becoming  a 
part  of  our  carnal  substance.  So  doth  the  Spiritual  Body 
of  Christ  continue  and  support  our  spiritual  life,  by  enter- 
ing into  and  becoming  incorporated  with  all  the  aflections, 


HISTORY    OF    THE    ERROR.  357 

faculties  and  powers  of  the  soul.  The  real  force  and  beauty 
of  this  divine  arrangement  is  not  improved  but  marred  by 
the  idea  of  transubstantiation,  and  neither  the  proper  defi- 
nition nor  the  design  of  a  sacrament  will  apply  to  it  any 
longer. 

As  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  which  belongs  to  every 
point  in  the  Roman  Catholic  controversy,  is  reserved  for  our 
next  and  last  lecture,  I  shall  occupy  the  brief  remnant  of 
this  discourse  by  a  condensed  statement  of  the  rise  and  pro- 
gress of  the  doctrine. 

The  unhappy  tendency  to  degenerate,  which  has  always, 
since  the  fall,  been  characteristic  of  mankind,  was  stimulated 
by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  Church  in  the  dark  ages 
of  Europe,  and  by  the  subtlety  of  her  spiritual  foe,  until  it 
produced  an  immense  variety  of  superstitions.  Thus  the 
Bible  was  used  to  determine  future  conduct  and  events,  by 
opening  it,  after  prayer,  and  drawing  an  augury  from  the 
first  verse  on  which  the  eye  might  fasten.  The  water  of 
Baptism  was  applied  as  a  charm;  the  bread  and  wine  of  the 
Eucharist  were  mixed  with  poultices,*  to  increase  their 
efficacy;  the  sign  of  the  cross  was  supposed  to  put  de- 
mons to  flight,  and  by  degrees  an  imaginary  power  and 
constantly  increasing  exaltation  of  dignity  were  connected 
with  the  martyrs,  with  the  saints,  with  pieces  of  the  true 
cross,  with  relics,  pictures,  images,  holy  water,  and,  in  a 
word,  with  every  thing  belonging  to  the  ceremonials  of  re- 
ligion, which  were  increased  inordinately  from  time  to  time. 
I  am  far  from  attributing  all  this  to  any  deliberate  intention  of 
the  priesthood  to  impose  upon  the  people ;  so  far,  indeed, 
that  I  do  not  design  to  cast  the  slightest  shade  upon  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  main  body  of  the  priests  themselves.  It  was 
the  taste  and  temper  of  the  countries  and  the  times,  imbibed 
by  all  men  from  their  early  education  in  the  days  of  healhen- 

^  See  Bishop  Burnet's  Expos,  of  Thirty-nine  Art.  p.  340. 


358  HISTORY    OF 

ism,  following  them  into  their  profession  of  Christianity,  and 
insensibly  debasing  and  corrupting  the  whole  system,  from 
the  period  when  the  Church  began  to  practice  on  the  dan- 
gerous principle  of  expediency,  without  asking  for  any  war- 
rant from  the  Word  of  God. 

It  is  obvious  that  while  such  a  process  was  going  on  in 
every  other  quarter,  the  highest  sacrament  of  the  Gospel 
would  feel  its  influence  most  sensibly,  so  that  the  true  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  spiritual  presence  in  the  holy  Eucharist, 
would  readily  suggest  a  superstitious  veneration  of  the  ele- 
ments themselves,  until,  at  length,  the  corporal  presence  of 
Christ  in  these  elements  was  made  a  point  of  faith,  and  they 
were  even  commanded  to  be  adored  with  the  highest  worship. 

It  took  many  centuries,  however,  to  establish  the  whole 
of  this  corruption.  The  first  author  who  openly  taught  the 
corporal  presence,  was  Paschase  Radbert,  Abbot  of  Corby,  in 
France,  in  the  9th  century.  And  he  was  opposed  by  almost 
all  the  distinguished  men  of  his  time.  The  dispute  sub- 
sided, and  little  was  said  about  it  during  the  10th  century, 
which  is  usually  looked  upon  as  the  darkest  and  the  worst 
in  ecclesiastical  history.  But  about  the  middle  of  the  11th 
century  it  was  again  revived,  with  a  strong  increase  of 
favour  on  the  side  of  superstition.  The  famous  Beren- 
garius  arose  at  this  time,  and  wrote  against  it.  He  was 
answered  by  Lanfranc  and  others,  and  many  councils  were 
held  upon  the  point.  But  at  length  Berengarius  was  con- 
demned, and  as  by  this  time  it  had  become  the  law  through- 
out Europe  that  heretics  should  be  burned  alive,  the  fear  of 
this  co-operated  with  the  general  appetite  for  the  marvellous, 
and  the  new  doctrine  rapidly  gained  ground  until  it  was 
thoroughly  confirmed. 

Honorius  IV.  was  the  first  pope  who  ordered  the  ele- 
ments to  be  adored.  Gregory  IX.  afterwards  directed 
that  a  bell  should  be  rung  to  give  the  people  notice  of  the 
elevation.     The  Schoolmen  next  took  up  the  doctrine,  and 


TRATsSUBSTAXTIATION.  359 

refined  it  into  its  present  shape  by  the  aid  of  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy,  which  was  then  the  great  systena  of  metaphysics, 
to  which  every  thing  was  submitted,  as  to  a  touchstone. 
The  term  transubstantiation  was  applied  to  it  by  the  4th 
Council  of  Lateran,  and  the  body  of  Amalric,  who  had 
written  against  it  some  years  before,  was  taken  up  and 
burned ;  for  such  was  now  the  horror  with  which  the  Church 
regarded  heresy,  that  the  very  bones  of  a  heretic  could  not 
be  suffered  to  moulder  quietly  in  their  grave. 

The  next  memorable  event  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine, 
was  the  establishment  of  the  great  festival  of  Corpus 
Chrisii,  which  is  related  in  the  following  manner.  A  cer- 
tain nun  of  Liege,  named  Juliana,  in  the  year  1230,  had  a 
vision  of  the  full  moon,  which  seemed  to  have  a  gap  in  its 
circumference;  and  was  told  by  a  special  revelation  from 
heaven,  that  the  moon  signified  the  Church,  and  the  gap 
signified  the  want  of  a  certain  festival  in  honour  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  which  she  was  to  commence  and  announce  to  the 
world.  Some  remarkable  miracles  occurred  about  the  same 
time,  to  help  forward  the  doctrine.  They  relate,  for  ex- 
ample, that  while  a  certain  priest,  who  did  not  believe  in 
transubstantiation,  was  going  through  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Mass,  drops  of  blood  fell  vpon  his  surplice,  and  when  he 
endeavoured  to  conceal  them  in  the  folds  of  his  garment, 
they  formed  bloody  images  of  the  consecrated  wafer  all 
over  it.  In  another  quarter  it  was  reported,  that  certain 
unbelieving  Jews  carried  away  the  Host,  (that  is,  the  con- 
secrated wafer  or  bread  of  the  sacrament,)  and  beginning  to 
pound  it  in  a  mortar,  found,  to  their  dismay,  that  blood 
issued  from  it,  and  that  the  blows  seemed  to  be  upon  flesh. 
And  again,  we  are  told,  by  the  same  Baronius  (Tom.  13,  p. 
579.)  that  some  thieves,  having  robbed  a  Church,  threw 
away  the  Host  into  a  pool,  where  it  kept  the  water  from 
freezing  all  the  next  winter;  and  a  neighbouring  deacon, 
who  did  not  know  what  the  reason  could  be  until  after  the 


360  FESTIVAL    or    CORPUS    CHEISTI. 

thieves  had  confessed  iheir  crime,  observed  a  constant  shining 
light  hovering  over  the  spot  every  night.  This  miracle  was 
forthwith  published,  greatly  to  the  credit  of  the  new  doctrine, 
and  the  wonderful  Host  was  carried  in  solemn  procession 
to  the  principal  Church.  Soon  afterwards,  pope  Urban  IV. 
decreed  the  festival  called  Corpus  Christi,  in  which  the 
same  procession  is  still  kept  up  every  year,  with  the  utmost 
magnificence,  in  Roman  Catholic  countries ;  every  one 
being  compelled  to  kneel  down  as  the  sacred  Host  passes 
by;  and  lights,  and  incense,  and  music,  and  beautiful  chil- 
dren dressed  as  angels,  with  banners,  flags,  and  every  other 
splendid  appendage,  render  it  the  most  imposing  spectacle 
among  their  ceremonies. 

The  last  finish  was  given  to  this  subject  at  a  still  later 
period.  For  the  apprehension  of  spilling  or  wasting  the 
smallest  portion  of  the  consecrated  wine,  which  they  sup- 
posed to  be  the  actual  blood  of  Christ,  became  so  great,  that 
they  began  to  draw  it  into  the  mouth  with  quills  and  pipes; 
and  at  last  the  Council  of  Constance,*  in  A.  D.  1415,  took 
the  cup  from  the  laity  altogether  ;  thus  assuming  to  be  wiser 
than  Christ,  and  making  it  exceedingly  doubtful,  to  say  the 
least,  whether  the  laity  receive  the  sacrament  at  all.  For  after 
they  have  wantonly  taken  away  one  half  of  this  divine  institu- 
tion, how  do  they  know  that  the  other  half  will  profit  them  ? 

But  thanks  be  to  God,  my  brethren,  that  our  lot  has  been 
cast  in  an  age  and  a  country,  where  we  are  relieved  from 
the  yoke  of  this  comparatively  novel  superstition ;  and 
where  the  Church  of  Rome  herself  does  not  attempt  to  cele- 
brate those  public  processions,  which,  in  other  quarters, 
remind  the  traveller  so  strongly  of  the  compulsory  genius  of 
her  system.    Thanks  be  to  God,  for  the  return  of  that  pure 

*  Hard.  Con.  Tom.  8.  p.  381.  The  decree  acknowledges  that  Christ 
Jesus  ordained,  and  that  the  primitive  Church  administered  in  both 
kinds,  and  yet  orders  those  to  be  punished  as  heretics^  who  hold  the 
change  to  be  unlawful! 


CONCLUSION.  361 

and  primitive  faith,  which  places  the  sacraments  before  us 
as  our  Lord  himself  appointed — which  holds  forth  every 
profound  and  affecting  principle  of  our  divine  Saviour's  doc- 
trine, without  a  superstitious  exaltation  of  the  outward  em- 
blem,— without  a  perilous  worshipping  of  consecrated  bread, 
under  the  notion  that  it  is  transformed  into  a  present  Deity. 
Let  us  never  forget,  however,  that  there  is  a  presence  of 
Christ  Jesus  granted  to  every  faithful  receiver  of  that  blessed 
sacrament;  since  to  all  such,  our  Lord,  with  the  consecrated 
symbols,  does  truly  give  the  inestimable  benefit  of  his  body 
and  blood,  not  after  a  corporeal,  but  after  a  spiritual  and 
heavenly  manner,  to  be  the  support,  and  nourishment,  and 
strength  of  their  souls.  And  while  we  fervently  seek,  by 
confession  and  penitence  before  the  Searcher  of  hearts,  by  a 
lively  exercise  of  faith  and  pious  thankfulness,  and  by  the 
grace  of  charity,  manifesting  itself  in  every  good  word  and 
work,  to  prepare  ourselves,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  for  the  due  reception  of  the  sacrament,  let  us  also  pray, 
with  zealous  earnestness,  for  the  welfare  of  the  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church,  whether  they  be  Greeks,  Romans,  or  any  other 
branch  of  our  Christian  brethren;  that  every  superstitious 
invention  of  man  may  be  banished  from  among  them,  that 
every  change  brought  in  upon  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  may  be 
done  away,  and  that  the  whole  world  may  be  united  in  the 
pure  worship  of  Him  who  can  alone  make  us  wise  unto 
salvation. 


2i 


LECTURE  XVI. 


1  Cor.  ii.  29.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth 
and  drinketh  judgment  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  body  of  the 
Lord.    (Doway  Version.) 

Such  of  you,  my  brethren,  as  I  had  the  pleasure  of  ad- 
dressing at  the  delivery  of  our  last  lecture,  will  remem- 
ber that  we  treated  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  as  held 
by  the  Church  of  Rome ;  that  is  to  say,  the  change  which 
they  believe  takes  place  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  holy 
Eucharist,  by  which,  immediately  upon  the  priest's  pro- 
nouncing the  words  of  consecration,  the  bread  becomes  tran- 
substantiated into  the  actual  flesh  of  our  blessed  Redeemer, 
and  the  wine  into  his  actual  blood — the  self-same  flesh  and 
blood  which  he  sacrificed  upon  the  cross,  and  along  with 
them,  his  soul  and  his  Divinity  ;  so  that  they  hold  it  to  be 
an  act  of  faith  to  fall  on  their  knees  before  the  bread  and 
wine,  thus  consecrated,  and  as  they  suppose,  converted  into 
the  Saviour  himself;  and  adore  them  under  this  belief,  as  if 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  presented  to  them,  in  the  outward 
form  of  bread  and  wine.  We  explained  on  the  other  hand, 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  which  teaches  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  indeed  received  hy  the  faithful  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  only  in  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner, 
and  that  the  bread  and  the  wine  in  this  sacrament,  like  the 
water  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  are  not  changed  in  their 
material  nature,  but  only  consecrated,  as  sacred  emblems, 
to  a  holy  and  religious  use.    We  showed  that  the  figurative 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ARGUMENT.  363 

language  of  our  Lord  was  admirably  calculated  to  set  forth 
the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  that  our  incorporation 
with  him  was  essential  to  our  justification  and  redemption; 
and  that  this  blessed  sacrament  was  mercifully  ordained,  not 
only  as  a  sign  but  as  a  means  of  grace,  to  promote  the  work 
of  this  incorporation,  that  Christ  might  be  in  us,  and  we  in 
him.  We  proved,  as  I  trust  sufficiently,  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  interpretation  was  inconsistent  with  Scripture,  and 
at  war  with  sense  and  reason ;  because  we  could  only  have 
the  testimony  of  our  eyes  to  prove  that  the  words  spoken  by 
our  Lord — This  is  my  body — this  is  my  blood — were  in  the 
Bible  ;  and  we  had  the  testimony  of  the  same  eyes,  with  the 
touch,  the  taste,  and  the  smell  besides,  to  prove  that  the 
bread  continued  to  be  bread  and  not  flesh,  and  that  the  wine 
continued  to  be  wine  and  not  blood,  so  that  before  we  could 
believe  their  doctrine  we  must  cease  to  believe  our  senses — 
or  rather,  what  is  still  more  absurd,  we  must  believe  one 
sense,  in  order  to  know  that  the  Redeemer  uttered  the  words 
at  all,  and  we  must  contradict  four  senses  in  order  to  receive 
the  Roman  interpretation.  We  presented  a  slight  sketch  of 
the  rise  and  history  of  this  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  in 
the  last  portion  of  our  discourse,  and  we  promised  to  take 
up  the  evidence  of  the  fathers  on  the  present  occasion,  so  as 
to  show,  conclusively,  from  the  witnesses  to  which  the 
Church  of  Rome  most  confidently  appeals,  that  the  writers 
of  the  primitive  and  ancient  Church  held  not  their  interpre- 
tation, but  our  own. 

To  this  portion  of  our  undertaking,  brethren,  I  would 
now  invite  your  attention,  only  reminding  you  that  we  never 
place  the  testimony  of  Christian  antiquity  upon  an  equality 
with  the  only  infallible  rule  or  law  of  faith,  the  written 
Word  of  God ;  but  consider  it  in  the  same  light  as  we  do 
the  opinions  of  the  judges  in  construing  the  laws  of  the  land, 
liable  indeed  to  error,  yet,  amongst  human  opinions,  entitled 
to  the  highest  respect.     I  would  further  request  you  to  bear 


364  THE    FATHERS,    IREX.EUS, 

in  mind,  that  in  consulting  the  opinions  of  the  primitive 
Church,  we  are  under  the  disadvantage  of  taking  only  those 
authors  which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  herself  thought  fit 
to  hand  down,  for  the  rest  are  lost  to  us.  Yet,  amongst 
those  very  works,  we  can  find  evidence  enough  to  demon- 
strate clearly,  that  the  doctrine  before  us  is  no  offspring  of 
those  purer  and  better  ages  of  the  Church,  but,  in  truth,  an 
absolute  innovation. 

I  commence  with  Irenaeus,  the  bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D. 
170,  who  speaks  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or 
the  Eucharist,  in  these  words  : 

"  We  offer  to  him,  therefore,  those  things  which  are  his 
own,  proclaiming  the  communication  and  the  unity  of  the 
flesh  and  the  spirit.  For  in  like  manner  as  the  bread  which 
is  from  the  earth,  receiving  the  invocation  of  God,  is  no 
longer  common  bread,  but  the  Eucharist,  consisting  of  two 
things,  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly,  so  our  bodies,  receiv- 
ing the  Eucharist,  are  no  longer  corruptible,  having  the  hope 
of  the  resurrection."*  Here  we  perceive,  brethren,  with 
considerable  clearness,  that  Irenceus  considered  the  heavenly 
gift  granted  in  the  Eucharist  lo  be  the  immortal  life  of  the 
body  from  the  grave.  But  the  passage  furnishes  proof  in 
two  respects,  that  he  could  not  have  believed  in  transubstan- 
tiation ;  for  first  he  tells  us,  that  the  bread,  after  the  invo- 
cation of  God,  is  no  longer  common  bread,  but  the  Eucharist, 
consisting  of  two  things,  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly; 
whereas,  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  hypothesis,  he  should 
have  said  that  it  was  no  longer  bread  at  all,  but  under  the 
veil  or  appearance  of  bread,  was  transubstantiated  into  the 
body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
And  secondly,  he  makes  a  comparison  which  is  totally  hos- 
tile to  their  doctrine.  For  as  the  bread,  after  consecration, 
saith  IrensBus,  is  no  longer  common  bread,  but  the  Eucha- 
rist, consisting  of  two  things,  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly, 

»  See  Iren.  Tom.  i.  p.  §51. 


TERTULLIAN.  365 

even  so  our  bodies  receiving  the  Eucharist,  are  no  longer 
corruptible,  having  the  hope  of  the  resurrection.  Now  here 
he  plainly  compares  the  change  which  takes  place  in  the 
bread,  to  the  change  which  takes  place  in  the  body  of  the 
receiver,  which  is  manifestly  not  a  change  of  substance,  but 
a  spiritual  quality,  to  be  developed  in  the  last  day. 

Our  next  witness,  however,  the  famous  Tertullian,  about 
thirty  years  later  than  Irenaeus,  will  yield  us  an  abundant 
expression  of  sentiment  upon  the  subject.  And  first,  let  us 
hear  him  upon  the  great  principle  of  adherence  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  senses. 

"  It  is  not  allowable  for  us,"  saith  he,  "  to  cast  doubt 
upon  the  testimony  of  the  senses,  lest  the  facts  of  Christ's 
history  be  destroyed,  for  it  may  then  be  said  that  he  falsely 
saw  Satan  fall  from  heaven,  or  that  he  falsely  heard  the 
voice  of  the  Father  bearing  witness  of  him,  or  that  he  was 
deceived  when  he  touched  the  mother-in-law  of  Peter — or 
that  thefiavour  was  something  else  than  of  wine,  which  he 
consecrated  in  memory  of  his  blood.  For  thus  it  is  that 
the  heretic  Marcion  wishes  to  believe  that  he  was  a  phan- 
tasm, despising  the  verity  of  his  whole  bodily  nature.  But 
nature  did  not  thus  make  a  mockery  of  the  apostles.  Faith- 
ful was  their  sight  and  hearing  on  the  mount ;  faithful  their 
taste  of  the  wine  which  had  been  water,  in  the  marriage  of  Ga- 
lilee; faithful  the  touch  of  Thomas  who  was  thereby  made  a 
believer.  Read  the  testimony  of  John :  '  That  which  we 
have  seen,'  saith  he,  '  which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have 
seen  with  our  eyes  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word 
of  life.  But  all  this  testimony  is  false,  if  nature  lies  to  us 
in  the  senses  of  the  eyes,  and  the  ears,  and  the  hands.''  " 
(Tert.  de  Anima,  p.  276.) 

Again,  pursuing  the  same  argument  against  the  heretic 
Marcion,  Tertullian  asks  this  significant  question.  "  Shall 
I  believe  the  Lord  concerning  the  interior  substance,  who 
has  deceived  me  concerning  the  exterior?  If  he  is  fallacious 

2  I  2 


366  TERTULLIAN. 

in  what  is  manifest,  how  shall  he  be  true  in  what  is  con- 
cealed?" (Tert.  adv.  Mar.  Lib.  3,  p.  401.)  Here,  brethren, 
we  have  a  forcible  rebuke  of  the  absurd  pretence,  which 
demands  the  utter  subversion  of  the  testimony  of  our  senses 
in  the  question  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  holy  Eucharist. 
For  if  our  blessed  Redeemer  requires  us  to  believe,  that  after 
the  prayer  of  the  priest,  a  little  wafer  has  become  transub- 
stantiated into  his  own  body,  soul  and  divinity,  and  that 
under  this  appearance,  he  designs  himself  to  be  actually 
taken  into  the  mouth  and  swallowed  by  every  communicant, 
while  the  eyes,  and  the  sense,  and  the  touch,  and  the  taste, 
all  testify  that  it  is  but  a  wafer  still,  there  is  an  end  at  once 
of  reliance  upon  the  senses,  and  there  is  no  test  remaining 
by  which  it  is  possible  to  distinguish  between  truth  and 
error. 

But  on  the  express  point  of  the  Eucharist  itself,  we  find 
Tertullian  using  language  totally  at  variance  with  the  Church 
of  Rome:  "  The  Lord  in  the  Gospel,"  saith  he,  (Tert.  adv. 
Mar.  Lib.  3,  p.  408,)  "  shewed  bread,  calling  it  his  body,  in 
order  that  you  might  thence  understand  him  to  have  given 
to  the  bread  the  figure  of  his  body."  Again,  (adv. 
Mar.  Lib.  4,  p.  457,)  "  Our  Lord,"  saith  Tertullian,  "  taking 
the  bread  and  distributing  it  to  his  disciples,  made  it  his  body 
by  saying,  This  is  my  body,  that  is,  the  figure  of  my  bodyj'^ 
"  And  that  you  may  recognize  an  ancient  figure  of  blood,  in 
wine,"  continues  Tertullian,  "  Isaias  will  teach  you  saying, 
(63  ch.)  '  Who  is  this  that  cometh  from  Edom,  with  red 
garments  from  Bozrah — I  have  trodden  the  wine-press  alone, 
— and  their  blood  is  sprinkled  upon  my  garments,  and  I 
have  stained  all  my  apparel.'  And  still  more  clearly  in 
the  book  of  Genesis,  where  Jacob  in  the  blessing  of  Judah, 
delineates  Christ :  '  He  washed  his  robe  in  wine,  and  his 
garment  in  the  blood  of  the  grape ;'  indicating  his  flesh  in 
the  clothing,  and  his  blood  in  the  wine.  Thus  now  he  con- 
secrates his  blood  in  wine,  as  then  he  figured  wine  for  his 


CYPRIAN.  367 

blood."  (i&.  458.)  Here  we  have  the  plainest  declaration  of 
the  true  scriptural  doctrine,  that  the  bread  is  the  figure  of 
the  body,  and  the  wine  the  figure  of  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and 
that  these  figures  were  not  instituted  for  the  first  time  when 
our  Lord  administered  the  sacrament,  but  were  established 
in  the  language  of  prophecy  long  before. 

I  shall  add  but  one  other  passage  from  this  celebrated  wit- 
ness of  Christian  antiquity  ;  and  that  is  in  reference  to  the 
sacrifice  of  which  the  prophet  Malachi  speaks,  and  which 
the  Roman  Church  interprets  to  be  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
himself  upon  the  altar.  "  From  the  rising  of  the  sun  unto 
the  going  down  of  the  same,"  saith  the  prophet,  *'  my  name 
shall  be  glorified,  and  in  every  place  sacrifice  shall  be  offered 
to  my  name,  and  a  clean  sacrifice,  namely,"  saith  Tertullian, 
"  the  simple  prayer  of  a  pure  conscience.''''  (Tert.  adv. 
Marc.  lib.  iv.  p.  413,  414.) 

Thus,  then,  brethren,  we  have  the  voice  of  the  primitive 
Church,  so  early  as  A.  D.  200,  strongly  insisting  on  the 
evidence  of  the  senses,  which  transubstantiation  would  de- 
stroy, saying  that  Christ  consecrated  the  wine  in  memory 
of  his  blood,  and  the  bread  as  a  figure  of  his  body,  and  de- 
claring that  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar  which  the  transubstan- 
tialist  would  call  the  offering  of  Christ  himself,  is  the  offer- 
ing of  prayer  from  a  pure  heart.* 

Let  us  next  inquire  what  testimony  the  distinguished 
Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage  and  a  martyr,  will  give ;  and 
we  shall  find  him  furnishing  a  very  interesting  confutation 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  the  whole  of  her  modern  doc- 
trine. It  appears  that  some  foolish  persons,  in  Cyprian's 
days,  had  undertaken  to  administer  the  Eucharist  with  water 
only,  without  wine.  In  reproving  them,  he  quotes  the  apostle 
Paul's  declaration  to  the  Corinthians,  where  he  says  that  he 
had  received  from  the  Lord  that  which  he  had  also  delivered 

*  IrensBus  also  interprets  tlie  incense  mentioned  by  Malachi  to  be 
the  prayers  of  the  saints,  p.  249,  §  6. 


368  CYPRIAN. 

unto  them,  and  adds  the  strong  expression  of  the  apostle  to  the 
Galatians,  jy  t/je,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other 
Gospel  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  he  accursed. 
"Since,  therefore,"  saith  Cyprian,  (ep.  118,  p.  63,)  "nei- 
ther the  apostle  nor  an  angel  from  heaven  could  teach  other- 
wise, than  Christ  had  once  taught,  and  his  apostles  had  deliv- 
ered, I  wonder  greatly  from  whence  this  novelty  has  arisen, 
in  certain  places,  that  against  the  evangelical  and  apostolical 
discipline,  water  is  offered  in  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  which  can 
never,  by  itself,  express  the  blood  of  Christ." — "  For  the  water 
signijies  the  people:  as  the  divine  Scripture  declares  in  the 
Apocalypse,  The  waters  which  thou  sawest,  upon  which  the 
harlot  sat,  are  peoples,  and  tribes,  and  nations,  and  tongues. 
Which  thing  we  behold  contained  in  the  sacrament  of  the  cup. 
For  as  Christ  carried  us  all  by  bearing  our  sins,  we  see  that 
the  people  are  signified  by  the  water,  while  by  the  wine  he 
shows  the  blood  of  Christ.  Therefore  when  the  water  is 
mixed  with  the  wine  in  the  cup,  the  people  are  united  with 
Christ,  and  the  whole  host  of  believers  is  conjoined  and  in- 
corporated with  him  in  whom  they  believe.  Now  this  com- 
mixture and  conjunction  of  the  water  and  the  wine,  in  the 
chalice  of  the  Lord,  is  so  intimate,  that  they  can  never  be 
separated  from  each  other;  and  hence  we  learn  that  the 

Church  can  never  be  separated  from  Christ. And  thus 

it  is  manifest,  that  in  consecrating  the  chalice  or  cup,  water 
alone  cannot  be  offered,  nor  yet  wine  alone, ybr  if  any  one 
offers  wine  alone,  the  blood  of  Christ  begins  to  be  without 
us;  but  if  the  water  bealone,  the  people  begin  to  be  ivithoiit 
Christ;  but  when  both  are  mixed  together,  then  the  spiritual 
and  celestial  sacrament  is  perfected.  And  as  the  cup  of 
the  Lord  is  not  water  only,  nor  wine  only,  but  both  united, 
in  like  manner  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  not  flour  alone,  nor 
water  alone,  but  both  united  together,  so  as  to  form  one  solid 
mass  of  bread.  By  which  is  also  signified  our  people  united 
together, /or  as  many  grains  of  wheat  collected  in  one,  and 


CYPRIAN.  869 

ground  and  mixed,  make  one  breads  so  in  Christ,  who  is 
the  bread  from  heaven,  we  know  there  is  one  body,  to  which 
our  assembly  is  united  and  conjoined.  Now,"  continues 
Cyprian,  "  that  Christ  alone  is  to  be  heard,  even  the  Father 
himself  declared  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,  hear  him.  Wherefore,  if 
Christ  is  to  be  heard,  we  ought  not  to  heed  what  any  others 
before  us  may  have  thought  proper  to  be  done,  but  what 
Christ,  who  is  before  all,  authorized.  Nor  is  it  fit  that  we 
should  follow  the  custom  of  men,  but  the  truth  of  God,  as 
God  himself  declares  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  In  vain  do  they 
worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
men ;  which  the  Lord  repeats  in  the  Gospel,  saying.  Ye 
reject  the  commandment  of  God  that  ye  may  keep  your 
own  tradition."  (lb.  120.)  "  But  all  the  discipline  of  re- 
ligion and  truth  is  subverted,  unless  that  which  is  spiritu- 
ally commanded  is  faithfully  retained."  This  long  extract, 
brethren,  from  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  fathers, 
gives  us  the  voice  of  the  primitive  Church  in  the  year  250; 
and  you  perceive  how  distinctly  it  declares,  that  the  bread 
and  the  wine  were  not  regarded  as  transubstantiated  into 
the  actual  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  as  figures  or  em- 
blems merely.  This  is  most  manifest  from  the  mixture 
of  the  water  with  the  wine,  which  Cyprian  insists  upon  so 
strongly,  because  he  uses  the  very  same  words  in  reference 
to  the  figurative  character  of  both,  the  wine  signifying  the 
blood,  and  the  water,  the  people.  Nothing  can  more  fully 
prove  that  Cyprian  had  no  idea  of  any  change  like  transub- 
stantiation  ;  for  the  same  principle  which  called  for  the  con- 
version of  the  wine  into  the  actual  blood,  would  have  called 
for  the  conversion  of  the  water  into  the  company  of  be- 
lievers ;  and  so  the  cup  would  contain,  not  only  the  blood  of 
the  Redeemer,  but  the  whole  host  of  the  redeemed. 

This  is  a  difficulty  which  should,  of  itself,  have  put  an 
end  to  the  attempt  to  establish  this  most  unhappy  and  mon- 


370  AMBROSE    AGAINST 

strous  innovation.  For  the  Church  of  Rome  still  retains  the 
ancient  custom  of  mingling  a  little  water  with  the  wine,  and 
if  we  ask  them  what  becomes  of  the  water,  when  the  wine  is 
changed  into  the  blood,  and  the  bread  into  the  flesh  of  the 
Redeemer,  there  is  no  answer  ready  which  can  at  all  con- 
sist with  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation. 

But  the  most  striking  point  of  contrast  between  this  vene- 
rable martyr  and  them,  is  shown  in  their  boldly  taking  the 
cup  away  from  the  people  altogether,,  as  if  it  were  a  mere 
superfluity.  Alas  I  how  strange  an  inconsistency  with  the 
authority  of  that  very  apostolical  tradition  which  they  pro- 
fess to  venerate.  Cyprian,  one  of  their  own  most  esteemed 
saints,  with  the  whole  primitive  Church  upon  the  one  hand, 
carefully  guarding  the  rule  laid  down  by  Christ,  and  ex- 
claiming strongly  against  any  innovation;  and  the  modern 
Church  of  Rome,  in  the  Council  of  Constance,  so  lately  as 
A.  D.  1415,  on  the  other,  ordering  that  the  laity  should  not 
receive  the  cup  at  all,  and  that  those  who  presumed  to  con- 
demn this  change  should  be  punished  as  heretics, — yes, 
heretics!  if  they  dared  to  prefer  the  example  of  Christ,  and 
the  practice  of  the  Church  for  fourteen  hundred  years  togeth- 
er, to  the  decrees  of  the  pope  and  the  Council.  Who  can 
avoid  the  emotions  of  astonishment  and  grief,  at  such  a  com- 
ment upon  the  claims  of  infallibility! 

But  let  us  summon  for  our  next  witness  the  admirable 
Ambrose,  bishop  of  Milan,  another  of  the  saints  canonized 
by  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  whose  testimony  we  shall  find 
several  sentences  which  strongly  resemble  the  Roman  doc- 
trine, while  nevertheless  we  shall  see,  when  we  have  the 
whole,  that  he  is  decidedly  opposed  to  it. 

"The  Lord  Jesus  himself  proclaims:  This  is  my  body," 
saith  Ambrose.  "  Before  the  benediction  of  the  celestial 
words,  it  is  called  another  thing;  after  consecration  it  signi- 
fies his  body.  He  declares  his  blood.  Before  consecration 
it  is  a  different  thing,  after  consecration  it  is  called  his  blood. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATIOIV.  371 

And  thou  sayest  Amen :  that  is,  It  is  true.  What  thy  mouth 
hath  spoken,  let  thine  inward  mind  confess:  what  thy  speech 
pronounces,  let  thine  affections  feel."  (Amb.  op.  Tom.  ii. 
p.  339,  340.  §  54.) 

*'  Again,"  saith  Ambrose,  "  Who  is  the  author  of  the 
sacraments,  but  the  Lord  Jesus?  From  heaven  the  sacra- 
ments came,  for  all  his  counsel  is  of  heaven.  But  thou 
perhaps  wilt  say.  My  bread  is  common  bread.  And  so  it 
is,  before  the  sacramental  words.  When  consecration  comes, 
then  of  the  bread  is  made  the  flesh  of  Christ.  But  how  can 
that  which  is  bread  become  the  body  of  Christ?  By  conse- 
cration. And  by  whose  words  is  this  consecration?  By 
those  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  For  all  the  rest  are  said  by  the 
priest:  praises  are  given  to  God,  prayer  is  offered  for  the 
people,  for  kings,  for  others;  but  when  he  comes  to  prepare 
the  venerable  sacrament,  the  priest  no  longer  uses  his  own 
words,  but  the  words  of  Christ.  Therefore  the  word  of 
Christ  makes  the  sacrament."     (Ibid.  368.) 

Now  thus  far,  brethren,  although  the  language  of  Am- 
brose is  susceptible  of  a  very  sound  interpretation,  yet  it 
must  be  confessed  that  the  general  strain  of  it  seems  rather 
favourable  to  the  doctrine  we  are  opposing.  But  we  next 
present  to  you  the  key  of  his  meaning,  which  will  explain 
those  expressions  clearly. 

"  That  I  may  further  answer  thee,"  saith  Ambrose,  "  it 
was  not  the  body  of  Christ  before  consecration,  but  after 
consecration  1  tell  thee  that  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  He 
said,  and  it  was  done;  he  commanded,  and  it  was  created. 
Thou  also  wast;  but  thou  wast  the  old  creature:  after 
thou  wert  consecrated  thou  didst  begin  to  be  a  new  creature. 
Dost  thou  desire  to  know  hoiv  ?  Every  one,  saith  he,  who 
is  in  Christ,  is  a  new  creature,''^     (Ibid.  369.) 

Here  we  perceive  how  far  this  venerable  father  was  from 
teaching  transubstantiation,  since  he  compares  the  change 
which  consecration  produces  on  the  bread  and  wine,  to  the 


372  AMBROSE    AGAINST 

change  which  a  similar  consecration  produces  on  the  be- 
liever. But  no  one  supposes  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  in 
making  the  new  creature,  through  a  change  of  heart  and 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  effects  any  thing  like  transubstan- 
tiation.  The  believer  retains  the  same  soul  and  the  same 
body  which  he  had  before.  The  change  is  a  change  of 
character  and  not  of  substance^  so  that  no  analogy  could 
more  clearly  prove  how  well  the  doctrine  of  this  witness 
accords  with  that  of  the  other,  and  how  completely  it  stands 
opposed  to  the  subsequent  innovation. 

He  passes  on  to  several  other  illustrations  of  the  power 
of  God,  in  not  one  of  which  is  there  the  slightest  pre- 
tence of  transubstantiation,  (p.  370,)  and  then  proceeds  as 
follows : 

"  Perhaps,  however,  you  will  say,  I  do  not  see  the  appear- 
ance of  blood.  But  it  has  a  soiilitude  :  for  as  you  have 
taken  the  similitude  of  death,  even  so  thou  drinkest  the 
similitude  of  precious  blood,  that  there  may  be  no  horror 
of  blood  itself  and  yet  the  price  of  your  redemption  might 
be  available.  And  thus  you  have  learned  that  what  you 
receive  is  the  body  of  Christ."  Here  we  see  a  still  further 
development  of  his  idea,  for  instead  of  answering  the  ob- 
jection like  a  believer  in  transubstantiation,  he  takes  the 
true  ground,  that  the  thing  which  the  eyes  beheld  was  only 
a  similitude,  or  a  figure.  His  doctrine  was,  that  by  the 
power  of  Christ  after  the  words  of  consecration,  the  bread 
and  wine  became  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  a  symbolical 
sense,  and  that  he  who  faithfully  received  them  was  made  par- 
taker of  the  Saviour's  body  and  blood,  after  a  heavenly  and 
spiritual  manner.  The  objector  is  supposed  to  answer,  that 
he  could  not  understand  how  this  could  be  so,  because  he 
saw  no  appearance  of  blood  in  the  cup.  Does  Ambrose  re- 
ply that  it  was  actual  blood  notwithstanding?  that  the 
appearance  was  only  a  veil?  that  he  must  not  credit  his 
senses?  or  does  he  urge  a  single  argument  that  resembles  the 
modern  reasoning  of  the  Church  of  Rome?    Not  at  all.   On 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  373 

the  contrary,  he  replies,  that  the  object  which  he  saw  had  a 
similitude^  that  as  he  had  undergone  the  similitude  of  death 
in  baptism,  so  he  drank  the  similitude  of  Chrisfs  blood  in 
the  sacrament,  and  that  nothing  more  than  a  similitude  was 
intended  by  the  outward  symbol  or  sign,  because  real  blood 
tvould  affect  him  with  horror.  What  can  be  less  like  the 
reasoning  of  a  transubstantialist  than  this?  and  what  can 
better  accord  with  our  doctrine,  that  the  communication  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  not  after  a  carnal  but 
after  a  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner  ? 

I  shall  notice  but  one  testimony  more,  from  the  writings 
of  Ambrose;  but  it  is  one  of  far  higher  importance  than  his 
individual  opinion,  because  it  gives  us  the  language  of  the 
liturgy  used  in  his  time,  in  the  very  prayer  of  consecration. 

"  Listen,"  saith  he,  "  to  the  celestial  words  of  consecra- 
tion. The  priest  saith,  '  Make  this  to  us,  O  Lord,  a  chosen, 
allowed,  reasonable  and  acceptable  sacrifice,  which  is  the 
figure  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  (p. 
371.)  And  again,  after  consecration,  the  priest  continues  his 
prayer  in  these  words:  '  Therefore,  O  Lord,  being  mindful 
of  his  most  glorious  passion  and  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  and  his  ascension  into  heaven,  we  offer  to  thee  this 
immaculate  sacrifice,  this  reasonable  sacrifice,  this  unbloody 
sacrifice,  this  holy  bread  and  cup  of  life  eternal^  and  we 
pray  and  beseech  thee  that  thou  wouldst  receive  this  offer- 
ing on  thy  sublime  altar  by  the  hands  of  thine  angels,  as 
thou  didst  vouchsafe  to  receive  the  gifts  of  thy  righteous 
servant  Abel,  and  the  sacrifice  of  our  patriarch  Abraham, 
and  that  which  the  highest  priest,  Melchisedec,  offered  to 
thee.'  "    (pp.  372,  380,  381  ;  as  also  Tom.  i.  p.  1411.) 

Now  here  we  have  the  strongest  testimony  of  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Church  in  the  days  of  Ambrose;  and  in  it  the 
Lord  is  besought  to  make  the  bread  and  wine  become  the 
figure  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  which  word  figure  is  an 
absolute  proof  against  the  whole  Roman  doctrine.     And  in 

2k 


374  AUGUSTIN    AGAINST 

complete  accordance  with  the  same  idea,  it  is  called,  after 
consecration,  the  holy  bread  and  cup  of  life  eternal.  So 
that  the  whole  testimony  here  afforded  to  us,  as  to  the  main 
point,  is  distinctly  in  favour  of  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  and 
totally  incompatible  with  transubstantiation. 

We  pass  on  next  to  Augustin,  the  bishop  of  Hippo,  who 
was  the  scholar  of  Ambrose,  but  went  far  beyond  his  teacher 
in  learning  and  in  talent.  The  great  number  of  his  writings, 
and  the  uncommon  importance  of  his  authority  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Church  of  Rome,  will  call  for  a  correspondent 
attention  to  his  declarations. 

To  commence  with  an  interesting  statement  on  the  sacra- 
ments in  general,  Augustin  saith,  "  If  the  sacraments  had 
not  a  certain  similitude  of  those  things^  of  which  they  are 
the  sacraments,  they  could  not  be  sacraments  at  all.  But 
from  this  similitude,  for  the  most  part,  they  take  the  names 
of  the  things  themselves.  Thus,  therefore,  according  to  a 
certain  mode,  the  sacrament  of  Christ'' s  body  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  the  sacrament  of  Chrisfs  blood  is  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  in  like  manner,  the  sacrament  of  faith,  (mean- 
ing Baptism)  is  faith. — Hence  the  Apostle  saith,  speaking 
of  Baptism,  we  are  buried  by  Baptism  into  death.  He  does 
not  say,  We  have  set  forth  the  sign  of  burial,  but  he  saith, 
We  are  buried.  He  calls  the  sacrament  of  the  thing  by  the 
v^ord  belonging  to  the  thing  itself^  (Aug.  op.  Tom.  ii, 
p.  202,  3,  §  9.)  Here  our  author  gives  us  the  sound  rule 
which  governs  the  name  applied  to  the  blessed  Eucharist,  but 
which  is  totally  hostile  to  the  Roman  doctrine.  It  is  called 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  saith  the  Church  of  Rome, 
because  the  bread  and  wine  are  actually  transubstantiated 
into  Christ's  flesh  and  blood.  Nay,  saith  Augustine,  but 
because  they  have  a  certain  similitude  to  Chrisfs  body  and 
blood,  therefore  they  are  called  by  the  name  of  those  things 
which  they  represent.  The  opposition  is  plain  and  pal- 
pable. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  375 

Again,  let  us  take  the  great  rule  of  Scriptural  interpreta- 
tion from  Augustin's  comment  on  the  sixth  chapter  of  St. 
John's  Gospel,  where  it  is  usually  understood,  by  the  di- 
vines on  both  sides,  that  our  Lord  was  speaking  of  the 
Eucharist.  "  If  a  preceptive  speech,"  saith  Augustin, 
either  forbids  a  crime  or  a  sin,  or  orders  something  useful 
or  beneficent,  it  is  not  figurative.  But  if  it  appears  to  order 
a  crime  or  a  sin,  or  to  forbid  something  useful  or  beneficent, 
it  is  figurative.  Unless  you  shall  eat,  saith  our  Lord,  the 
flesh  of  the  son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  shall  have 
no  life  in  you.  Here  he  seems  to  order  a  crime  or  an  out- 
rage, and  therefore  it  is  a  figure,  directing  the  communioji 
of  our  Lord''s  passion,  and  that  v)e  should  sweetly  and 
usefully  lay  up  in  our  memory,  that  for  us  his  flesh  was 
crucified  and  wounded.^''  (lb.  Tom.  iii.  p.  40,  §  24.)  We 
perceive,  brethren,  in  this  passage,  that  the  modern  Church 
of  Rome  and  St.  Augustin  are  completely  at  issue;  for 
they  insist  that  our  Lord  meant  to  be  understood  literally] 
whereas  Augustin  expressly  saith,  as  we  do,  that  he  spake 
figuratively. 

Again,  "  The  Lord,"  saith  Augustin,  "  being  about  to 
give  the  Holy  Spirit,  saith,  that  he  is  the  bread  which  cometh 
down  from  heaven,  exhorting  us  to  believe  in  him.  For 
to  believe  in  him,  is  to  eat  the  living  bread.  He  who  believes, 
eats,  he  is  invisibly  nourished,  because  he  is  invisibly  regene- 
rated." (Tom.  iii.  par.  ii.  p.  358.  §  1.) 

Again,  "  Augustin  repeats  the  language  of  our  Lord,  This 
is  the  brecul  which  cometh  dowji  from  heaven,  that  if  any 
one  eat  thereof,  he  shall  not  die^  "  But  this,"  observes  our 
author,  "  belongs  to  the  virtue  of  the  sacrament,  not  to  the 
visible  sacrament ;  the  promise  is  to  him  who  edits  inwardly, 
not  outwardly ;  not  to  him  who  presses  with  his  teeth,  but  to 
him  who  eats  in  his  heart.'"'  (lb.  §  12.) 

Again,  in  a  very  interesting  little  discourse  to  the  young, 
Augustin  saith  :  "  I  promised  to  you  who  are  newly  bap- 


376  AUGUSTIN    AGAINST 

tized,  a  sermon  in  which  I  should  explain  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  table,  which  you  now  behold,  and  of  which  you 
were,  last  night,  made  partakers.  You  ought  to  know  what 
you  have  received,  what  you  are  hereafter  to  receive,  what 
you  should  receive  daily.  The  bread  which  you  see  upon 
the  altar,  sanctified  by  the  Word  of  God,  is  the  body  of 
Christ.  The  cup,  or  rather  that  which  the  cup  contains,  is 
the  blood  of  Christ.  By  these  things  the  Lord  Christ  designs 
to  commend  his  body  and  blood,  which  he  shed  for  us  in 
the  remission  of  our  sins.  If  you  have  partaken  of  them 
rightly,  you  are  what  you  have  received.  For  the 
apostle  saith,  H^e  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one 
body.  He  thus  expounds  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  table: 
We  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body.  In  this 
bread,  therefore,  is  commended  to  you  how  you  ought  to 
love  unity."  (lb.  p.  677-8  §  1.) 

Here,  brethren,  is  another  plain  proof  that  Augustin  was 
no  believer  of  transubstantiation.  "  You  are^^  saith  he, 
*'  what  you  have  received.''''  This  is  easily  understood  i 
an  orthodox  sense,  if  we  remember  that  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  are  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  figura- 
tively and  mystically^  because  the  Church  is  also  the  body 
of  Christ,  figuratively  and  mystically.  But  if  the  bread 
and  the  wine  were  transubstantiated  into  his  natural  flesh 
and  bloody  as  the  Roman  Catholic  system  declares,  St.  Au- 
gustin's  language  would  be  absurd;  for  no  one  imagines 
that  the  whole  company  of  the  faithful  become  the  body  of 
Christ  in  a  carnal  sense  like  this. 

He  proceeds,  however,  ta  make  his  meaning  still  more 
clear:  "These  mysteries  or  sacraments,"  saith  he,  "are 
great;  yea,  very  great.  Therefore  the  Apostle  saith,  Who- 
soever eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  What  is  it  to  receive  unwor- 
thily 1  To  receive  in  mockery,  to  receive  in  disdain,  or  dis- 
regard.    Let  not  that  seem  to  you  mean  or  vile,  which  you 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  377 

behold.  What  j^ou  see  passes  away  ;  but  what  is  signified, 
invisible,  does  not  pass  away,  but  remains.  Behold,  the  one 
is  received,  is  eaten,  is  consumed ;  but  is  the  body  of  Christ 
consumed?  is  the  Church  of  Christ  consumed?  are  the 
members  of  Christ  consumed?  God  forbid.  Here  they  are 
cleansed;  there  they  are  crowned.  That  which  is  signified 
therefore  remains  eternally,  although  that  which  is  seen 
passes  away.  So  do  ye  then  receive,  that  you  may  have 
unity  in  your  heart :  let  your  hearts  remain  lifted  up,  let 
your  hope  not  be  in  earth,  but  in  heaven."     (lb.  678.) 

After  this  beautiful  and  strong  passage,  I  shall  add  but 
little  more  from  Augustin,  but  that  little  is  decisive,  even  if 
we  had  nothing  besides.  "Our  Lord,"  saith  he,  "did  not 
hesitate  to  say.  This  is  m,y  body,  when  he  gave  them  the 
sign  of  his  body."  (Tom.  viii.  p.  90,  §  3.)  Once  more, 
treating  of  an  objection  foolishly  raised  against  the  applica- 
tion of  marriage  by  St.  Paul,  to  the  union  between  Christ  and 
the  Church,  Augustin  says :  "  The  sacraments  or  mysteries 
are  sacred  signs,^^  and  as  an  illustration  he  turns  to  the 
Lord's  supper ;  "  Thus  we  acknowledge,"  continues  he, 
"  the  mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
giving  to  us  his  flesh  to  eat  and  his  blood  to  drink ;  and  we 
receive  it  with  faithful  heart  and  mouth,  although  it  would 
seem  more  horrible  to  eat  human  flesh  than  to  perish,  and 
to  drink  human  blood  than  to  be  destroyed;  and  in  like 
manner,  through  all  the  holy  Scriptures,  according  to  the 
rule  of  the  true  faith,  if  any  thing  is  said  or  done  in  a  figure, 
and  the  exposition  is  drawn  from  those  words  and  things 
which  are  contained  in  the  sacred  pages,  let  us  listen  wisely 
and  not  disdainfully;  and  let  us  leave  this  talker  of  empti- 
ness, who  really  knows  not  what  he  says,  in  his  unskilful 
handling  the  quality  o^  figures  of  speech.''  (Tom.  viii.  p. 
425,  §  33.) 

To  these  conclusive  and  multiplied  testimonies  from  this 
most  distinguished  of  the  fathers,  brethren,  a  few  short  ex- 
2k2 


378  CYRIL    AND    LEO. 

tracts  from  some  other  great  authors  may  perhaps  be  joined, 
although  it  be  unnecessary. 

Cyril,  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  is  often  quoted  by  the  wri- 
ters on  the  other  side  as  favourable  to  their  doctrine,  but  I 
shall  present  to  you  a  passage  from  his  works  which  I  think 
clearly  decisive  against  them. 

Speaking  of  the  vow  in  Baptism,  to  renounce  Satan  and 
all  his  pomps,  he  includes  within  the  meaning  of  this  vow 
the  bread  and  flesh  which  the  heathen  were  accustomed  to 
devote  to  their  idols  on  their  festivals ;  and  then  he  makes 
this  comparison:  "For  just  as  the  bread  and  wine  of  the 
Eucharist,  before  the  sacred  invocation  of  the  adorable 
Trinity,  were  mere  bread  and  wine,  but  after  this  invocation 
the  bread  becomes  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  wine  the 
blood  of  Christ,  so,  and  in  the  same  manner,  the  articles  of 
food  belonging  to  the  pomps  of  Satan,  although  by  their 
nature  they  are  common,  are  rendered  profane  and  conta- 
minated by  the  invocation  of  demons^  (Cyr.  Hier.  Cat. 
xix.  Mystag.  i.  p.  308.)  I  do  not  see,  brethren,  how  such  a 
comparison  could  ever  have  been  made  by  a  transubstan- 
tialist;  for  certainly,  just  as  St.  Paul  sets  the  table  of  the 
Lord  in  opposition  to  the  table  of  devils,  Cyril  sets  the  Eu- 
charist in  opposition  to  the  bread  and  flesh  offered  in  the 
idol  feast.  But  surely  he  would  not  have  done  this  if  he 
had  believed,  that  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eucharist  had 
vanished  in  the  prayer  of  consecration,  and  that  in  their 
place  was  the  body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity,  of  the  Lord 
Jesus. 

In  the  following  century,  namely,  the  fifth,  we  find  pope 
Leo  the  great,  strongly  condemning  the  error  of  some  who 
refused  the  wine  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
"  They  receive  the  body  of  Christ,"  saith  he,  "  with  unwor- 
thy mouth,  but  they  altogether  decline  receiving  the  blood  of 
our  redemption.  Wherefore  we  make  it  known  to  you,  that 
men  of  this  description,  whose  sacrilegious  hypocrisy  is  de- 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ARGU3IENT.  37$ 

dared  by  such  signs,  be  driven  by  the  authority  of  the 
priesthood  from  the  society  of  the  faithful."  (Leon.  Mag. 
Tom.  i.  p.  106.)  How  wonderful  the  change,  brethren,  that 
the  sacramental  blood  which  pope  Leo  in  the  fifth  century, 
expelled  these  men  for  refusing  to  take,  the  Church  of  Rome, 
some  nine  centuries  afterwards,  and  ever  since,  should  refuse 
to  give  them. 

But  here  we  must  close  our  extracts  from  the  fathers, 
although  a  large  mass  of  testimony  remains  behind.  Enough, 
however,  I  trust,  has  been  cited,  to  prove  that  the  primitive 
Church  of  Christ  knew  nothing  of  this  doctrine,  which  has 
become,  in  modern  days,  so  prominent  a  peculiarity  of  the 
Church  of  Rome;  so  that  we  are  again  compelled  to  accuse 
her  of  a  total  disregard  to  every  principle  of  authority,  whe- 
ther divine  or  human,  in  her  wilful  determination  to  raise 
her  own  notions  of  expediency  above  the  Word  of  God,  the 
voice  of  Christian  antiquity,  the  testimony  of  sense,  and  the 
judgment  of  right  reason. 

For  what,  I  beseech  you,  becomes  of  her  reverence  for 
the  authority  of  our  Lord,  when  she  dares  openly  to  forbid, 
to  all  her  laity,  the  sacred  cup  of  the  Sacrament,  which  He 
commanded  to  be  received;  and  even  fulminates  her  curse 
against  those,  who  presume  to  prefer  the  precept  of  Christ 
before  the  decree  of  her  miscalled  General  Council? 

What  becomes  of  her  boasted  agreement  with  the  fathers, 
when  their  uniform  judgment,  pronouncing  the  consecrated 
elements  to  be  only  a  type  and  a  figure,  is  distorted  from  its 
true  meaning;  while  she  proclaims  another  solemn  curse 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  very  saints  whom  she  has  placed 
upon  her  own  calendar? 

What  becomes  of  her  regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  senses, 
when  her  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  entering  by  one 
sense,  is  made  to  bear  down  and  destroy  the  evidence  of 
four  senses,  pronouncing  the  very  contrary? 

What  becomes  of  her  respect  for  the  judgment  of  right  rea- 


380  GENERAL    SUMMARY. 

son,  when  she  asserts  a  miracle  without  an  atom  of  the  only 
evidence  to  which  all  other  miracles  appeal,  namely,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  senses,  and  commands  a  species  of  idolatry  more 
revolting  than  any  which  the  world  has  ever  known  ?  Absurd, 
indeed,  was  the  heathen  belief,  that  a  Deity  was  inclosed 
within  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars — or  within  the  body 
of  some  living  animal — or  within  an  image,  whether  framed 
by  the  exquisite  art  of  the  Grecian  sculptor,  or  roughly 
hewn  by  the  hand  of  barbarian  skill.  But  no  heathenism  has 
ever  so  outraged  all  right  reason,  as  the  doctrine  which 
invests  a  little  wafer,  in  the  hands  of  a  priest,  with  the  incar- 
nate majesty  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  denounces  the  eternal 
anathema  of  the  Almighty  upon  all  who  refuse  to  fall  down 
and  worship  it.  And  if  the  blessed  Reformation  had  been 
excited  by  no  other  cause,  than  this  fearful  corruption  and 
mutilation  of  the  truth  and  integrity  of  the  great  Christian 
Sacrament,  that  alone  would  have  been  an  ample  justification. 
Nor  would  the  glorious  company  of  our  martyrs  have  needed 
a  better  argument  for  departing  from  the  communion  of 
Rome  than  the  simple  fact,  that  it  was  no  longer  possible  to 
enjoy,  in  her  maimed  and  superstitious  ritual,  the  Eucharistic 
feast,  AS  IT  WAS  comjianded  by  the  Saviour. 

And  now,  my  beloved  brethren,  as  I  design  to  continue 
this  course  of  lectures  no  further,  you  will  indulge  me  with 
a  few  concluding  observations,  to  sum  up  the  whole.  Many 
and  most  serious,  indeed,  are  the  topics  which  I  have  left 
untouched.  The  Roman  doctrine  of  Justification,  their  priestly 
powers  of  absolution,  their  system  of  the  confessional,  their 
works  of  penance,  their  maxims  of  morality,  especially  as 
they  are  presented  by  their  distinguished  Jesuits,  their  mode 
of  religious  teaching,  so  disconnected  from  the  Scriptures, 
the  privileges  granted  to  their  monastic  orders,  the  effects 
attributed  to  the  baptism  of  bells,  and  the  sign  of  the  cross, 
and  the  aspersion  of  holy  water,  with  a  considerable  list  of 
kindred  subjects,  would  furnish  a  large  scope  for  important 


GENERAL    SUMMARY.  381 

and  interesting  discussion.  But  my  object  has  not  been  so 
much  to  attempt  a  full  and  complete  examination  of  their 
entire  system,  as  to  select  a  few  of  the  more  prominent  points 
which  their  modern  advocates  are  in  the  habit  of  defending ; 
and  to  show,  by  a  thorough  examination  of  these  alone,  the 
absolute  necessity  which  called  for  the  Reformation,  the 
principles  upon  which  it  was  conducted  in  our  mother  Church, 
and  its  great  results  in  purifying  the  whole  religious  atmos- 
phere of  Europe,  including  even  the  practical  aspect  of 
Rome  herself,  at  least  in  Protestant  countries. 

With  this  design,  I  have  passed  in  review  the  subject  of 
the  rule  of  faith,  embracing  the  comparative  rights  of  the 
Bible  and  tradition ;  the  claims  of  celibacy  in  the  priesthood, 
the  monks  and  the  nuns ;  the  supremacy  of  the  pope ;  the 
worship  of  the  virgin  and  the  saints,  of  relics  and  of  images; 
the  doctrines  of  persecution,  purgatory,  satisfaction  and 
indulgences,  and  lastly  transubstantiation.  In  all  of  these 
we  have  seen  a  certain  portion  of  truth,  exaggerated,  dis- 
torted, and  deformed,  until  it  ended  in  the  most  extravagant 
error;  and  in  every  single  item  of  the  melancholy  list,  we 
have  found  sufficient  cause  for  the  work  of  the  Reformation ; 
while  the  aggregate  forms  a  mass  of  superstition  and  abuse, 
which  only  excites  the  deepest  regret  and  astonishment  that 
such  a  Reformation  should  have  been  so  long  delayed,  and 
that  the  light  and  knowledge  brought  in  by  its  instrumentality, 
should  have  still  left  so  much  darkness  and  ignorance  remain- 
ing, throughout  the  great  body  of  Christendom. 

We  have  also  seen,  in  some  measure,  how  we  might  ac- 
count for  these  various  corruptions  of  the  Church.  Multi- 
tudes of  her  converts  had  been  heathen,  of  talents,  learning, 
and  philosophical  reputation.  These  naturally  inclined  to 
indulge  their  old  habits  of  thought,  by  engrafting  them,  as 
much  as  possible,  upon  the  pure  Gospel:  and  this  was  one 
source  of  error.  Multitudes  of  others  were  politicians,  cour- 
tiers, men  of  the  world ;  who,  when  the  conversion  of  the 


382  GENERAL    SUMMARY. 

Roman  emperor  Constantine,  in  A.  D.  312,  made  Christian- 
ity the  established  and  the  fashionable  religion,  exerted  all 
their  influence  to  invest  it  with  every  attraction  which  might 
serve  to  gratify  and  please  the  bulk  of  the  people :  and  here 
was  a  kind  of  policy  which  proved  another  source  of  error. 

Then  came  the  temptation  of  the  love  of  power,  which 
made  the  superior  orders  of  the  clergy  too  often  forget  the 
proper  duties  of  their  sacred  ofRce,  in  the  paramount  object 
of  securing  the  empire  of  the  Church,  by  which  was  really 
meant,  their  own.  While  the  fierce  rivalry,  the  unhallowed 
contentions,  and  the  lordly  claims  of  these  worldly-minded 
prelates,  gave  increasing  influence  to  the  opposite  class  of 
mystic  and  contemplative  pietists,  who  withdrew  from  the 
world  and  the  public  glare  of  ostentation,  to  bury  themselves 
in  a  gloomy  seclusion ;  and  thus,  the  power  of  superstition, 
and  mortification,  and  self-imposed  austerities,  established  a 
false  but  most  impressive  kind  of  sanctity,  which  led  man- 
kind still  further  away  from,  the  precepts  and  example  of  the 
Saviour. 

And  then,  the  most  powerful,  perhaps,  of  all  second  causes, 
the  decline  and  fall  of  the  Roman  empire,  ushered  in  the 
long  ages  of  barbarism,  ignorance,  feudal  servitude,  and 
bondage,  both  of  mind  and  body,  which  offered  the  strongest 
inducements  to  the  spiritual  despotism  of  the  popes,  and  even 
recommended  every  ingenious  contrivance,  by  which  the  wild 
license  of  warriors,  barons,  and  belted  knights,  should  be 
held  in  check,  through  the  force  of  pious  frauds,  and  salu- 
tary terrors.  And  thus,  stage  after  stage,  the  immense  fabric 
of  ecclesiastical  dominion  was  carried  to  such  a  height,  that 
the  pope  became  the  master  of  kings  and  emperors;  the 
priests  became  the  sovereigns  of  the  people ;  the  mild  Gospel 
of  mercy  became  associated  with  the  tortures  of  the  inquisi- 
tion; the  sword,  and  the  prison,  and  the  stake,  became  the 
converters  of  heretics  and  the  guardians  of  the  faith ;  until, 
at  last,  the  name  of  a  priest,  or  a  monk,  was  almost  a  con- 


GENERAL    SUM3IARY.  383 

vertible  term  for  immorality  and  abomination.  The  worse 
the  Church  became,  the  more  she  insisted  on  her  infalUbi- 
lity ;  and  thousands  of  the  better  and  more  reflecting  class 
began  to  think,  tliat  the  Temple  of  God  had  indeed  become 
the  synagogue  of  Satan. 

At  length  came  the  hour  of  successful  resistance — the 
struggle  of  the  Reformation.  The  holy  Scriptures  were  re- 
stored to  their  rightful  ascendency,  the  testimony  of  the 
earlier  fathers  was  set  against  the  corrupt  innovations  of 
later  times — the  Church  in  many  quarters  was  cleansed 
from  the  accumulated  pollution  of  centuries — the  Gospel  of 
truth  was  proclaimed  with  honest  zeal  by  a  great  company  of 
fearless  preachers — and  a  large  proportion  of  Europe  shook 
off  the  yoke  of  papal  usurpation,  to  be  oppressed  by  it  no 
more.  Bright  was  the  prospect  which  cheered  the  hopes  of 
the  reformers  at  this  mighty  change,  and  vast  has  been  the 
advantage  to  all  the  best  interests  of  the  civilized  world. 
But  alas!  after  three  hundred  years  have  rolled  away,  the 
result  is  far  from  being  so  complete  as  might  have  been  anti- 
cipated. Liberty  has  brought  along  with  it  careless  neglect. 
Freedom  from  the  yoke  has  multiplied  dissensions.  The 
chains  of  superstition  are  converted  into  the  bondage  of  the 
world,  and  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  improved  morals  and 
more  moderate  claims,  derives  an  argument  of  increasing 
strength  from  the  divisions  of  Protestants,  talks  of  regaining 
her  old  dominion,  and  looks  forward  to  the  ultimate  consoli- 
dation of  the  whole  earth  beneath  her  sceptre. 

Under  such  circumstances,  brethren,  it  must  surely  be 
admitted,  that  those  who  are  the  descendants  of  the  reform- 
ers should  look  well  to  their  Christian  privileges,  and  to 
their  Christian  responsibility.  Reproachful  and  dangerous 
as  it  is,  at  all  times,  to  be  ignorant  or  careless  about  our 
religious  principles,  it  is  doubly  so  at  a  time  like  this.  The 
cause  of  the  Reformation  is  the  cause  of  God,  because  it  as- 
serts the  rightful  supremacy  of  the  Bible — the  word  of  God— 


384  CONCLUDING    OBSERVATIONS. 

over  the  false,  the  superstitious,  and  the  debasing  scheme  of 
human,  or  worse  than  human  invention.  And  if  the  suc- 
cess of  the  Reformation  has  not  been  such,  as  its  pure  and 
sacred  system  would  liave  led  us  to  anticipate,  let  us  remem- 
ber that  the  same  remark  is  yet  more  applicable  to  the  Gos- 
pel itself.  Shall  men  be  allowed  to  say  that  the  Reforma- 
tion is  a  failure,  because  strife  and  dissension  abound 
amongst  the  ranks  of  Protestants,  and  even  our  own  beloved 
and  well-ordered  Church  is  not  wholly  at  rest  ?  Shall  they 
be  allowed  to  say  that  the  Reformation  is  a  failure,  because 
the  Church  of  Rome  still  stands  in  strength  and  majesty, 
proclaiming  her  unchangeableness,  and  predicting  her  final 
victory  ?  As  well  may  they  tell  us  that  Christianity  has  been 
a  failure,  because  Christendom  itself  is  in  subjection  to  the 
world,  and  the  hearts  of  men  are  still  corrupt  and  selfish,  and 
infidelity  walks  side  by  side  with  faith,  and  the  Church  Uni- 
versal is  rent  into  hostile  divisions,  and  darkness  still  shrouds 
the  sight  of  Israel,  and  the  false  prophet  still  keeps  millions 
in  bondage,  and  paganism  still  holds  down  more  than  half 
the  race  of  man,  although  eighteen  centuries  have  rolled 
their  round,  since  the  sublime  commencement  of  the  apos- 
tolic Church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

But  false,  and  ungrateful,  and  absurd  would  it  be  es- 
teemed by  every  candid  mind,  to  argue  thus  with  respect  to 
Christianity.  Incalculable  arc  the  blessings  which  the  world 
owes  to  the  Gospel,  notwithstanding  the  prevalence  of  evilj  and 
if  it  has  not  effected  all  that  might  have  been  anticipated,  the 
fault  is  not  in  the  Gospel,  but  in  those  who  refuse  to  adopt  it. 
Precisely  in  the  same  manner  may  we  decide  the  question 
concerning  the  good  effects  of  the  Reformation.  Its  great 
leading  principle  was,  the  re-publication  of  the  Book  of  God, 
which,  for  ages,  had  been  thrust  aside  to  make  way  for  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  and  the  heavy  yoke  of  human  tra- 
dition. And  vast  have  been  its  blessed  results  in  every 
quarter  of  Christendom.     It  has  disarmed  the  ecclesiastical 


CONCLUDING    OBSERVATIONS.  385 

oppressor,  restored  the  primitive  faith,  overthrown  the  Inqui- 
sition, burst  the  captive's  chains,  opened  the  prison  doors, 
quenched  the  flames  of  torture,  established  the  claims  of 
conscience,  purified  the  lives  of  the  priesthood,  diffused  use- 
ful knowledge,  restrained  the  tyranny  of  monarchs,  and 
recognized,  on  the  broad  scale  of  the  divine  judgment,  the 
temporal  and  eternal  rights  of  man.  Nay,  the  Church  of 
Rome  herself  has  felt  the  benign  influence,  which,  although  it 
has  indeed  changed  none  of  her  dangerous  and  anti-Christian 
principles,  has  yet,  wherever  she  comes  into  contact  with 
Protestants,  modified  and  improved  their  practical  applica- 
tion. No  man  of  intelligence  and  observation  can  be  igno- 
rant, that  a  purer  standard  of  morals,  a  higher  mark  of  gen- 
eral intelligence,  a  more  elevated  tone  of  instruction,  and  a 
serious  decrease  of  superstition,  distinguish  the  Church  of 
Rome,  in  Protestant  countries,  from  the  same  Church  else- 
where. So  that  if  she  dare  be  just,  without  regard  to  policy, 
even  Rome  herself  would  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  the 
benefits  of  the  Reformation. 

Far  be  it  from  us,  however,  to  presume  on  the  righteous- 
ness of  our  cause,  as  an  excuse  for  sloth  or  negligence.  It 
is  a  time,  not  for  pride  and  boasting,  but  for  repentance  and 
humility — not  for  blind  confidence  and  apathy,  but  for  watch- 
fulness and  prayer.  It  is  a  time  when  the  true-hearted  sons 
of  the  Reformation  should  cast  away  their  prejudices,  and 
strifes,  and  divisions ;  seek  for  the  things  that  make  for 
peace,  and,  firmly  united  among  themselves,  contend  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints — not  in  bitterness,  nor  in 
wrath,  nor  in  evil-speaking,  but  in  soundness  of  speech,  and 
ripeness  of  knowledge — meekly  instructing  all  who  oppose 
the  truth,  and  especially  laboring  for  the  benefit  of  that 
Church  of  Rome,  which  it  is  our  duty  to  regard  with  the 
love  of  benevolence,  notwithstanding  all  her  grievous  errors, 
for  the  sake  of  the  multitudes  who  belong  to  her  corrupt 
communion.     The  Reformers  themselves,  with  millions  of 

2l 


396  OBJECTION    FROM   PROPHECY. 

their  countrymen,  were  once  involved  in  the  same  darkness. 
Why,  then,  should  we  despair  of  the  further  progress  of  the 
Reformation  1  Why  may  we  not  hope  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  might  yet  be  led  to  see  her  errors,  and  be  restored  to 
her  original  purity  ?  Why  should  we  not  make  it,  so  far  as 
we  have  opportunity,  a  subject  of  our  efforts,  our  wishes, 
and  our  supplications  ?  Are  we  content  to  be  of  the  number 
whose  strength  is  to  sit  still  ?  Are  we  willing  to  expose 
ourselves  to  the  woe  pronounced  against  those  who  are  at 
ease  in  Zion  1 

But  prayers  and  efforts  in  behalf  of  Rome  may  be  deri- 
ded by  some,  on  the  strength  of  prophecy.  Is  not  Rome 
Babylon?  Is  not  the  pope  Antichrist?  And  must  not 
Babylon  fall  ?  And  shall  not  Antichrist  be  destroyed  by  the 
brightness  of  the  Redeemer's  coming?  Assuredly,  my 
brethren,  Babylon  must  fall,  and  Antichrist  must  be  destroy- 
ed, for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it.  But  may 
not  Babylon  signify  her  princely  dominion,  her  pomp  and 
pride?  May  not  Antichrist  signify  her  anathemas,  her  per- 
secution, her  idolatry,  her  assumed  infallibility,  her  papal 
despotism  ?  And  is  it  not  possible  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
— such  as  she  was  when  planted  by  apostolic  hands,  and 
such  as  she  continued  for  the  first  few  centuries — might 
again  arise,  when  Babylon  and  Antichrist  are  both  cast  down 
forever?  Is  it  inconsistent  to  think,  that  the  awful  corrup- 
tions figured  by  these  names  might  all  be  cleansed  away, 
while  the  ancient  principles  of  faith,  government  and  wor- 
ship should  remain ;  and  thus  while  Popery  should  indeed 
be  overthrown,  the  primitive  Church  of  Rome  might  be 
raised  again  to  life  amidst  the  ruin? 

It  is  no  part  of  my  design,  however,  to  enter  upon  the 
discussion  of  the  prophecies  connected  with  our  subject. 
However  we  may  interpret  these  Sacred  Oracles,  beloved 
brethren,  we  cannot  err  in  humbly  looking  forward  to  the 
unfolding  of  those  great  events,  which  may,  even  now,  be 


CONCLUSION.  387 

nigh  at  hand.  We  cannot  err  in  diligently  striving  to 
watch  and  labor,  as  good  stewards,  in  our  respective  voca- 
tions. We  cannot  err  in  offering  to  the  throne  of  grace  the 
fervent  and  the  constant  prayer,  that  the  pure  faith  of  the 
Gospel  may  be  established  without  any  alloy  of  human  inven- 
tion— that  the  Church  of  Rome  herself  may  be  brought 
back  to  her  own  original  standard — that  the  dissensions  of 
Christendom  may  all  be  healed — that  the  kingdoms  of  our 
world  may  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his 
Christ,  and  that  the  whole   earth  may  be  filled  with 

mS  GLORY. 


THE    END. 


DATE  DUE 

Mi 

CAVLORO 

l»«lNTCO  IN  U.S.*. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Librar' 


1    1012  01145  1491 


